SECTION 1 - THE MODEL STEP BY STEP
Step
|
Description
| |
0.1
|
INTRODUCTION
The model of reality presented here is based on the aspects of reality that we can observe, in other words, the available evidence in terms of facts and information. It explores what happens if we produce a model of reality based only on what we can observe, test and verify. Specifically, can the existence of our universe be explained based on only what we can observe, test and verify?
| |
0.2
|
This information is explored in three directions:
a) Starting with particles, then heading in the direction of decreasing size to the limits of the subatomic world
b) Starting with the observable universe as it is today, then heading backwards in time to the Big Bang and beyond
c) Starting with organisms, then heading in the direction of their constituent parts down to particles.
| |
1
|
The world we observe does not actually consist of particles – there is an underlying fabric of reality, consisting of fields, spread throughout all of space. What we perceive as a particle is actually a ripple in a field. For example, light consists of ripples in the electric and magnetic field. This idea originated with Michael Faraday in the 1840s based on observations of electricity and magnetism and was confirmed 50 years later.
| |
2
|
Space is permeated with several fields, and it is ripples in those fields that we perceive as fundamental particles and forces. For example, waves of the electromagnetic field are what we perceive as particles of light (photons). Like photons, electrons are also not fundamental. Every electron in the universe is a wave in the same electron field, just like the waves on the Pacific coast of the USA are part of the same underlying ocean as the waves on the Pacific coast of Australia. The same principle applies to every known particle in the universe.
Summary: Although we use the word "particle" because it is a concept that's easy to envisage, there are no particles as such in our universe. The building blocks of reality are fluid-like substances we call fields.
References [an ever growing list]:
2.1 Quantum Gravity
2.10 Virtual Particles
2.16 Parallel Universes
2.17 Ads-CFT Correspondence and Quantum Gravity 2.18 How could the universe create itself from nothing? | |
3.1
|
How many fields exist?
First, there are the particle fields. There are twelve particles that comprise everything we have ever seen or detected...
(numbers show mass in terms of mass of electron)
The top row represents the particles we experience every day. The others only appear in extreme conditions, such as in particle accelerators. Even though we refer to them as “particles” - they are not really particles
Each particle arises from a field and it is the twelve fields shown above that give rise to what we perceive as particles
| |
3.2
|
The twelve "particle" fields in 3.1 interact with each other through four different forces...
Two of these are familiar (gravity and electromagnetism) but there are two other forces that only operate on small scales of a nucleus – the strong nuclear force which holds the quarks together inside protons and neutrons, and the weak nuclear force which is responsible for radioactive decay and making the sun shine among other things. Each of these forces is associated to a field.
So... twelve fields that give matter and four other fields that are the forces. The universe is a combination of those sixteen fields acting together in interesting ways. The universe is filled with these fields, which are fluid-like.
| |
3.3
|
Consider an example: Say one of the matter fields starts to ripple, for example, the electron field starts to wave up and down. That could kick off the electromagnetic field which in turn will also oscillate and ripple producing light. That will react with the quark field which in turn will oscillate and ripple and so on. We end up with a harmonious dance between all these fields, interlocking with each other, swaying and moving this way and that way.
That image represents the fundamental laws of physics.
| |
4
|
There is one extra field, which became famous recently and that is the Higgs Field. It was first suggested in the 1960s by Peter Higgs but experimental evidence did not appear until 2012 in the Large Hadron Collider, which made a Higgs Boson particle appear by creating a ripple in the Higgs field.
a) It is responsible for mass in the universe. Properties of particles are actually a statement of how their fields interact with other fields. So the property we call the electric charge of an electron is actually a statement of how the electron field interacts with the electromagnetic field. The property of its mass is a statement of how it interacts with the Higgs field.
b) It was the final piece of the standard model jigsaw. It took 50 years to discover and it behaves precisely as predicted by the theory.
| |
5
|
Perhaps the most interesting field of all is not really a field in its own right. The final part of the fields jigsaw is called the zero-point field. It's not really a field but is what we see there is an absence of particles in all fields. It transpires that in the complete absence of particles, a field still exists. As with all fields, it is governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which explains nothing in reality can be still (because it's state would be pre-determined which breaks a fundamental rule of quantum physics).
This state of nothingness is called the vacuum state and it is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. It contains no physical particles at all.
What we discover when we examine this state is that empty space is not empty: Nothingness is not nothing but is actually a field full of bubbles and activity, known as quantum vacuum fluctuations. These can't be observed directly but they can be modelled mathematically
and look like this...
Vacuum fluctuations were predicted by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and they are not just theoretical – they have been measured, they are real, and their effect has been observed (for example, they give rise to the Casimir effect).
| |
5.2
|
Summary of fields:
There are no particles in the universe.
The building blocks of reality are fluid-like substances known as fields.
They permeate the entire universe.
Empty space is not nothing - it is a field full of bubbles and activity.
| |
6
|
6.1 This step is
a journey with time in reverse, starting from now and going back to the point
when our universe appeared. I’ve provided a list of 23 milestones along the
way. It’s too lengthy to post so you can see the whole thing here...
But to cut a
very long (14 billion years) story short, the journey ends as our universe
winks out of existence. Given that the structure of our universe grows simpler
and simpler as we go backwards in time, it is logical to assume that the first
cause is as simple as possible - a limitless ocean of nothingness.
Step 5 shows that nothingness cannot be empty. Hence, we find
ourselves in a limitless vacuum field - our limitless ocean of nothingness
is "seething" with quantum fluctuations.
6.2 But what can we assume about this “pre-universe”
environment? Let’s call it the Uncaused Cause Environment (UCE). Obviously, we know nothing about it and can only
speculate. So on one hand we can assume anything exists there, including God,
heaven, angels and so on. However, that’s
a very complex scenario and my approach here is to assume the simplest possible
environment.
6.3 If we assume an absolute
nothingness with no locations then that eliminates any possibility of a
first cause, because a first cause must have some kind of location, because
it must be “somewhere” even if it's in dimensions that we can't visualise. The
assumptions in this model are (a) there is a first cause and (b) it's the
simplest possible state that could cause a universe to exist. This confirms that
a state of nothingness is impossible and is consistent with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle.
6.4 Let’s assume in the UCE there are no particles, no
forces, no space and no time. We have to
assume the UCE is limitless, because if not, there would be something beyond it. Let us also assume that in the UCE there is no time, no space, no forces, no particles. Now let’s check if these assumptions are
compatible with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. In other words, can this
weird UCE that we can’t even visualise, contain quantum fluctuations?
6.5 Heisenberg’s principle
tells us that for a pair of conjugate variables, it is impossible to have
a precisely determined value of both variables at the same time. This is why
quantum fluctuations exist and why absolute nothingness is impossible. Here is
the equation formulated for location and momentum:
ΔpΔx ≥ h/4π
6.6 This equation tells us that the more accurately a particle’s location is known (the smaller Δx is), the less accurately the momentum is known. As Δx gets smaller then Δp must get bigger to balance the equation. (h is the Planck constant). But does it apply to the UCE which is beyond (and before) our universe?
(For a worked example of how to use Heisenberg’s
equation, see 7.13e-4 in the FAQ section)
6.7 We are
assuming that the UCE is timeless and energy independent so we use the form of
Heisenberg’s equation that does not require time or energy. Can a fluctuation have momentum in the
UCE? The answer is yes, because the momentum of a massless particle is h/λ
(where λ is the wavelength). Can the fluctuation have a location? Again
the answer is yes (see 6.3). Hence Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle applies
even in an environment that has no space, no time and is matterless and energy
independent. Or to be precise, we have no reason to assume that the principle
does not apply.
The UCE itself is of course, speculation, but it's speculation
based on logic and evidence, as far as it is possible to do so. And once
we have quantum fluctuations, we have the seeds of a universe, as described in step 7.
| |
7
|
First, a brief summary of step 6: The universe is 13.8 billion years old. During its first 380,000 years a primordial fireball - a state where atoms could not exist, where matter was distributed as a highly ionised plasma. We know this because we can see the remnants of it, known as cosmic microwave background radiation and it looks like this...
By studying the patterns, patches and flickering in the background radiation, we get a lot of information about what was happening when the universe was born.
We know that whatever caused this flickering must have happened at the instant of the big bang. The environment within which the big bang occurred would have left some kind of fingerprint on what subsequently appeared (our universe).
Step 6 assumes a limitless zero point field, where only vacuum fluctuations can exist. In 1973, Edward Tryon suggested that our universe may have originated as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. However this idea wasn't taken seriously until inflationary theory was formulated, which showed that our universe could indeed inflate from a tiny particle.
There is now a mathematical model for that initial process. Here is an introduction to the paper. And here is the paper itself.
If we refer back to step 6, we notice the universe getting smaller, denser and hotter as it gets younger. Eventually, if we keep extrapolating, we would see those densities and temperatures rise to infinite values, as all the matter and energy in the Universe was contained within a single point: a singularity. But if that was true, there would be a number of clear signatures of this we could observe today. But those signatures do not exist. It's clear therefore, that the universe was never in a state of "infinite temperature" or "infinite density". There was no singularity. The initial vacuum fluctuation resulted in a microscopically tiny universe consisting only of vacuum energy, which:
• caused a rapid, exponential expansion,
• that stretched the Universe flat,
• gave it the same properties everywhere,
• with small-amplitude quantum fluctuations,
• that get stretched to all scales (even super-horizon ones)…
...and then inflation comes to an end. When it does, it converts that energy, which was previously inherent to space itself, into matter and radiation, which leads to the hot Big Bang. But it doesn't lead to an arbitrarily hot Big Bang, but rather one that achieved a maximum temperature that's at most hundreds of times smaller than the scale at which a singularity could emerge. In other words, it leads to a hot Big Bang that arises from an inflationary state, not a singularity.
The assumption of "stretched fluctuations" referred to above has been confirmed, because the calculations based on our knowledge of quantum vacuum fluctuations perfectly match the observations of the patterns in the cosmic background radiation.
Conclusion: The remnants of the big bang that we observe provide evidence that our universe was born in a quantum field. We know there were no particles at the time of the big bang, so the only field that could have existed is a zero point field. This is impossible to visualise, but we can use the analogy of an infinite ocean, bubbling with quantum fluctuations, which produce universes. Within that ocean, universes would be constantly popping into existence and our universe is one of those.
In the next step we will consider whether quantum fields are providing clues to an even deeper level to reality, and what the next laws of physics might be.
| |
8
|
The theory which underlies all this is the pinnacle of science, the greatest theory human beings have ever come up with. It’s called the standard model and mathematically, it looks like this (includes annotation):
The first term comes from Einstein and describes gravity. You can predict how far an apple falls from a tree, or why the planets orbit in ellipses, or what happens when black holes collide, or how the universe itself expands.
The second term comes from James Clark Maxwell and it tells us everything about electromagnetism, the results of Faraday’s experiments, lasers, etc.
The next term governs strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces.
The part that describes matter comes from Paul Dirac
Finally the Higgs Boson equations produced by Peter Higgs.
(Z itself is the Partition Function)
We have yet to find a way that this equation stops working, however, there are three things it does not explain:
a) We know there is stuff out there in the universe that is not explained by this equation, such as invisible particles (dark matter). We can’t see dark matter particles but we can see their effects, for example on how galaxies rotate or how light bends around galaxies.
b) There is also dark energy spread throughout space, which is probably some kind of field but not one we understand. It causes everything in the universe to repel everything else.
c) We know that immediately after the singularity, the universe was in a hot dense state that underwent a rapid phase of expansion which we call inflation, resulting in the big bang. That is also not explained by the equation.
We need to understand those in order to determine the next laws of physics.
| |
9
|
So far we’ve started at the level of particles and worked down to the limits of the subatomic world. Let’s carry out the same exercise but start at the level of living organisms.
a) We observe the entire body of the organism.
b) We observe that the entire body is made up of body parts and organs
c) Each of those organs and parts is made up of a variety of tissues.
d) Examining a magnified sample of tissues under a microscope reveals millions of cells.
e) Turning up the magnification reveals molecules
f) We know those molecules are made of atoms.
…and that takes us back to step 3.1 where we have the components of the atoms themselves.
The point of this step is to highlight once again that there is a trend – when we observe the complexities of the universe as it is today, and then drill down either through space or through time, we see the structures becoming simpler and simpler.
| |
10
|
Is there an even deeper level to reality? There are patterns that suggest there is something deeper underneath the standard model.
For example, the equation that describes the force of electricity and magnetism is almost the same as the equations that describe the strong force and the weak nuclear force. So maybe it’s not a case of three forces, maybe it’s one force and we are actually looking at that one force from three different perspectives.
The twelve matter fields in the universe each obey the same equation (the Dirac equation). So maybe it’s not twelve fields, but one field, which we see from twelve different perspectives.
These ideas are known as unification. Electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are three of the fundamental four forces of nature, which are responsible for all of the pushes and pulls in the universe. Finding a single force which underlies those three forces is called grand unification. The equations for matter and forces are also very similar. So maybe matter and forces are related to each other, and this idea is called Supersymmetry.
The ultimate step would be to combine all the terms into a single term from which everything emerges: Gravity, Higgs, all the forces, all the particles... everything. The theory for this is called String Theory. It contains the entire standard model in a single concept.
| |
11
|
To verify any of this requires experiments. There’s no way to test string theory at the moment, but the LHC is testing the other ideas. However it has not seen anything yet. Three approaches currently being considered to accelerate progress:
1) Be patient! Maybe it will see something next year or the year after. (This seems unlikely).
2) All our theories are so beautiful they must be right so what we need is a bigger machine. Ten times more powerful. That would cost $10 billion and not many governments want to invest in this, except possibly China. It would take 20 years to happen.
3) Maybe the suggestions of unification are red herrings. Maybe if we work harder to understand the standard model equation better, other options will emerge. So maybe we should dig deeper into the equation and challenge some of the assumptions. There are hints in there of mathematical patterns we haven’t explored
|
SECTION 2 - Summary of objections
First, a summary of the objective of the model: Can the origin of our universe be explained using only the aspects of reality that we can observe. In other words, just using logic, and the available evidence in terms of facts and theories. The model presented above achieves that objective.
The objections fall into five categories:
a) Philosophical: The model is "absolutist"; "deterministic"; "materialistic"; etc.
This is not a valid objection because even if one (or all) of those labels was accurate, the model is not invalidated. As it happens, those labels are inaccurate - the best description of the philosophy behind the model is "probabilistic" as that is the nature of matter at the quantum level. But whatever labels one chooses, none of them validate or invalidate the model. That can only be done using evidence and testing.
b) Metaphysical: The model depends on "mindless, mechanical forces".
This is not a valid objection because the model depends only on the behaviour of quanta. A quantum is not a force, it is not mechanical and it's impossible to know if it is mindless or not. Furthermore, a quantum is arguably not even physical - it's possible that a wave function does not physically exist in spacetime. This objection is related to objection (a) above in that the model works despite of this objection. the objection also dissolves if we simply assume quanta are not mindless.
c) Limitations: The model does not explain everything, for example consciousness, quantum gravity, dark matter, etc.
This is not a valid objection because the model does not set out to explain everything (see summary of the objective above) and in any case, there can never be a model that explains everything. The model shows how current knowledge can explain the fact that our universe exists. As it happens, the model canprovide explanations for consciousness, quantum gravity, dark energy and dark matter, but these are avoided here because i) no one knows what those phenomena are, so any explanation is speculative ii) it doesn't need to and iii) no one knows if those phenomena are quantum phenomena (so there's no reason to expect QFT to explain them). The bottom line is that the model can explain the existence of our universe despiteits limitations.
d) Scope: The model makes predictions that have not been verified, such as the existence of a multiverse
The model I've presented does not depend on a multiverse (it would be more logical to say a multiverse depends on quantum mechanics, or the multiverse depends on inflation, etc.). There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that predicts a multiverse. (The big bang theory and string theory also predict a multiverse.) Given that quantum mechanics and relativity have such an astounding track record of successful predictions, the prediction of a multiverse should be taken seriously and investigated.
e) Incredulity: Some of the model's interpretations or predictions seem unbelievable, incredible or difficult to imagine.
This is not a valid objection. A prediction or interpretation cannot be assumed to be wrong just because it seems unbelievable, incredible or impossible to imagine. (The argument from incredulity is a well known logical fallacy). A theory can only be discounted if it is proven wrong by evidence or testing, or if it has no basis in logic. Several predictions of Quantum Mechanics appeared nonsensical at first, but had to be taken seriously because they were inherent within a mathematical model which had already made many successful predictions. They were later proven to be true. If a theory has a record of making successful predictions, then all of its predictions should be taken seriously and investigated until proven wrong.
SECTION 3 - The Detailed Objections
Objection 0.1: Your introduction is wrong because all that the "testing" can provide is models which are to be accepted only on a tentative basis, lest further testing from another point of reference might "disprove" such. The protocol works pretty well when the matter being tested is mindless physical/chemical processes, but such testing only yields information which likewise references mindless physical/chemical processes.
Response 0.1: I absolutely agree that any model (not just mine) is tentative. However, that doesn't alter the fact that the model of reality presented here is based on the aspects of reality that we can observe, in other words, the available evidence in terms of facts and information. It explores what happens if we produce a model of reality based only on what we can observe, test and verify. Specifically, the basis of the model is the behaviour of quanta.
Objection 0.2: You are admitting an a priori, inductive basis for the deductive conclusions that follow, and you by no means demonstrate that you are "observing" all aspects of reality. You ask us to assume that you are doing so, but at this point you have already drawn subjective conclusions as to what constitutes such, based on your philosophical presumptions--i.e., that which constitutes mindless chemical/physical processes--only.
Response 0.2a: I didn't say I was observing all aspects of reality and such an approach makes no sense. For example, if one was explaining the divinity of Jesus one wouldn't need to consider the Shang dynasty of China.
Response 0.2b The model I'm presenting here is specifically based on the fabric of reality, the "stuff" reality is made of. The idea is to observe the stuff reality is made of, examine that stuff and determine if the nature of that stuff can explain the origin of the universe (rather like the DNA of a person can provide clues to the origins of that person). Like any logical argument, I present premises upon which a conclusion is based. Also note that I make no claim as to whether the processes I refer to are “mindless”. That is your assumption.
Objection 0.3: The fundamental basis of your presentation is that which can be "observed." In other words, in regress, you eventually arrive at a point where whatever "observations" you base your views on cannot be subject to testing and verification. They are merely "observations" based on a priori assumptions which you subjectively interpret through the lens of whatever philosophical presumptions form your actual faith-based world view. That is as true of the actual basis of your world view as it is of mine, Jim.
Response 0.3: I use facts as evidence wherever possible. Obviously, when we go back in time and arrive at the point where the universe does not exist - we can only speculate. But I’m basing my speculation on the evidence that is available up to that point. When I refer to “observations” I mean exactly that – things that are observed. Phenomena. These are explained by theories.
Objection 0.4: My primary focus is how QFT applies to YOUR interpretation and YOUR application of such to YOUR model.
Response 0.4: I am not providing an interpretation. In fact I am avoiding any and all interpretations. FYI, the most common interpretations are listed in this table, but note that there is no experimental evidence which distinguishes among these interpretations. The physical theory stands, and is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. I deliberately avoid interpretation so that the model is just based on facts, evidence and logic. The predictions from quantum mechanics, and the results of experiments which test those predictions, are the same no matter which interpretation one adopts.
Objection 0.5: You say the results of experiments are the same but that can't be true, otherwise, there would be actual agreement among all physicists on the matter and not a multiplicity of conflicting hypotheses drawn from that equation when it comes to applying such to concrete matters!
Response 0.5: There is complete agreement regarding the verified predictions from quantum mechanics (and relativity). No one can deny the results of the experiments. There is disagreement regarding interpretations of those results (e.g. Copenhagen Interpretation, Many Worlds Interpretation, De Broglie-Bohm and several more.) The Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation. None of those interpretations change the equations of the Standard Model or Relativity.
Objection 0.6: More on QFC [sic] This discussion is getting out of hand from the layperson's perspective, but here are some more objections to the mathematical basis of QFT--actually, the only basis that it has: http://www.physics.ntua.gr/cosmo07/UniNet/Morning%20Lectures/Pokorski.pdf
Response 0.6: Not sure what QFC is. Quantum Fried Chicken?! But seriously... That paper does not provide any objections to the mathematical basis of QFT - it actually confirms the success of the mathematics underlying Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and QFT and the Standard Model (SM) especially in predicting the properties of subatomic particles. It is written by Prof. Stefan Pokosrksi, a prolific researcher in QCD and gauge field theories. The only element of doubt in his paper is regarding the predicted properties of the Higgs Boson, which is understandable because the paper was written in 2007, several years before the Higgs was detected. The paper is just one among many that were presented at a conference in 2007 which has some fascinating lectures, although somewhat out of date now.
Objection 0.7: You have an absolutist view that such-and-such is precisely defined and that abstractions like mathematics likewise precisely define--or provide a basis for defining-- materialist presumptions regarding "reality" itself.
Response 0.7: I don’t have an absolutist view. I don’t think anything is absolute. I don’t recognise your definition of mathematics. As I explained, mathematics is simply the language of logic. I do think definitions are important and we should define things as clearly as possible. As for the model I presented, it is indeed based on what is known.
Objection 0.8: At what point does your model venture beyond that which is falsifiable, even by its own fallible standards?
Response 0.8: The model I've presented ventures beyond the falsifiable in step 7, which is where I consider the environment that existed prior to the existence of our universe. Obviously speculation is required in any model which ventures into a time before our universe existed, but I've been careful to ensure any speculation is based on logic and evidence. One could say that the DNA of our universe provides clues as to the nature of its parent! Step 7 includes a mathematical proof that a universe can form spontaneously from quantum fluctuations.
Objection 1.1: Your assessment that the underlying fabric of reality consists of fields spread throughout all of space, may or may not be accurate even from a scientific standpoint, and I question the adequacy of your perspective which would define all of "reality" only in terms of mindless processes.
Response 1.1: It is accurate as described by Quantum Field Theory - the most successful theory in history. My perspective is not to define reality in terms of mindless processes (whatever that means), but to describe reality on the basis of what is known, and then see where it leads us.
Objection 2.1: Since you are basing your argument on technical scientific claims, are there competing hypotheses or theories that would dispute your interpretation of available data on the matter?
Response 2.1: Short answer is “no” - but there is a longer answer and it is a topic I intend to cover in the final step, so hold on to that thought. As for being technical, I will try to keep it as non-technical as possible but bear in mind that you have referred to these concepts several times in various posts on this db before I did, so it seems reasonable that I should do the same.
Objection 2.2a: Entangled photons appear to act in tandem instantaneously over vast distances, suggesting that there is something at work which exceeds the speed of light--even though that would undermine Einstein's general relativity theory itself. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Response 2.2a: If we begin with your Wikipedia article you will see that entanglement means particles have correlated states, not actions. There is no violation of Einstein’s laws of relativity. The. measurement of the state of entangled particle A does NOT trigger a response in entangled particle B. There is no signal between them. Entanglement means that the measurements of the property of the two particles are correlated. It doesn't matter what the distance between them is. If one is measured to have property X, then the other will also have a corresponding property simply because they were entangled in such a way that their properties are correlated.
Objection 2.2b: Were that the case, there would be no theoretical basis for quantum computers, whereby calculations would be "instantaneous," nor for encoding, which would theoretically be "unbreakable" or "unhackable." The true "fact" however is that--even though quantum entanglement can be studied and even some of its effects predicted, scientists still have no idea, on a fundamental basis, how--or why--it "works:"
Response 2.2b: Using quantum entanglement for quantum computing is further verification of the theory. The key is the superposition of quanta. A normal computer "bit" can be 0 or 1. A quantum bit (qubit) is in superposition - it has two different states at the same time. If two qubits are also entangled, they can store all the possible combinations of the quantum states (four values). Adding another qubit to the entangled pair doubles the number of combinations and so on, so that for example, 20 entangled qubits can store 1,048,576 values which is way, way beyond current computer power based on bits. But again note - the entangled particles do not communicate or transmit information - measuring the state of one particle means the state of the other particle is known.
Objection 2.2c: You are not describing how entanglement itself came about...
Response 2.2c: Entanglement happens in nature but it's a very fragile state. As soon as there's an interaction, with one of the entangled particles, they are no longer entangled. The electrons in an atom are entangled. To demonstrate entanglement experimentally requires particles to be entangled artificially, for example, by exciting calcium atoms with intense laser light causes electrons to decay, giving off two photons that are entangled.
Objection 2.2d: ... or in what way it interacts with the substance of "reality."
Response 2.2d: In quantum field theory, entanglement is just another example of quantum collapse. If a single quantum, even if spread over miles of space, can instantaneously collapse, then it follows that two entangled quanta can do the same. This prediction jumped off the page when quantum mechanics was formalised in the 1930s, but it was not accepted by many at the time, including Einstein. But as with the other predictions of QM and QFT, it has been verified experimentally. I know it's beyond weird but in quantum mechanics, the wavefunction does not physically exist in real spacetime in other words, locality is not a limitation in the quantum world.
Objection 3.1: On what basis are we to assume that every claim you made i Step 3 is accurate? As usual, you claim all kinds of things and presume that we will just take your unsupported word for it. Would you care to provide links to sources other than yourself which you think might justify the matter on your own presumptive basis?
Response 3.1: Step 3 is a presentation of the standard model and quantum field theory. It can be found in any physics text book. It is not new or contentious. I have however tried to keep it brief. More detail is provided in these links:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/
Objection 3.2: You are already handicapped by your view that all of "reality" can be accounted for by your one-dimensional presupposition that such has its basis in mindless physical/chemical processes, when that hypothesis has been demonstrably shown to be inaccurate. Of course if you believe otherwise you are free to present evidence to the contrary that you would be willing to own up to--but, Jim, if there is such reasoned evidence--where is it?
Response 3.2: This objection presents no specific challenge to the evidence I've presented. The final sentence is especially puzzling: All I've presented so far is evidence - and I'm being asked where is the evidence?!
Objection 4.1: You are pontificating a number of claims and you continue to stonewall my request that you provide external links of support to everything you are claiming to be the case. Bear in mind again that the universe cannot be accounted for solely through the "laws" of physics that you appeal to, and that many quantum experiments have strongly indicated that "consciousness" is the fundamental basis for physical reality.
Response 4.1: I have provided links (see 3.1). The universe can be accounted for through the laws of physics (that's exactly what I'm presenting). There are no experiments which indicate that consciousness is the fundamental basis of physical reality.
Objection 4.2: Your model renders consciousness irrelevant--hence you claim that it "works"--or can "work"--referencing only mindless mechanistic processes!
Response 4.2: The model references only the behaviour of quanta. and perhaps consciousness affects that behaviour. I have no way of knowing. You say the model "references only mindless mechanistic processes", but it makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to mindless mechanistic processes. All such references come exclusively from you.
Objection 5.1: You are handicapped by your philosophical presumption that all of "reality" can be accounted for in mindless physical/chemical processes, even when that hypothesis has been demonstrably shown to be inaccurate per falsifiable testing within its own presupposition.
Response 5.1: This provides no reference to the actual evidence that I've provided. Also, I have made no philosophical presumption other than what is described in 0.1.
Objection 5.2: Why do you continue to argue on such a discredited basis?
Response 5.2: The information I've provided is not discredited – just the opposite. it is the most successful theory in history and has made predictions way beyond the level of accuracy that anyone expected.
Objection 5.3 You presume that what is stated about quantum bubbles applies to the "nothingness" that existed before the universe was created. how are we to assume that that is valid? you cannot replicate such a condition in any way here without making massive presumptions.
Response 5.3 This is covered in detail in step 7, but obviously, when a model of reality refers to an environment before our universe existed, then of course assumptions have to be made (and that also applies to models which require God). What I'm doing here is presenting the evidence which my assumptions are based on, specifically:
From step 7: We know there was at least one quantum field in existence immediately after the Big Bang because we can see its fingerprints in the cosmic background radiation.
From step 5: We know that empty space is itself a quantum field and we know that field is not empty. Nothingness is not nothing but is actually a field full of bubbles and activity, known as quantum vacuum fluctuations. These can't be observed directly but they can be modelled mathematically. Their effect has been predicted and tested (it's known as the Casimir effect).
From step 6, as we rewind time, we see the universe becoming simpler and simpler. It is reasonable to assume that it will eventually reach a state which is as simple as possible, which would be nothingness, and we know that nothingness is full of quantum fluctuations.
So the point is, if our universe appeared from an environment of nothingness, it would leave exactly the kind of evidence that we observe. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that our universe could have appeared as a result of a quantum fluctuation in the zero point field.
Objection 5.4 I object the scope of your claim that the fabric of reality consists of fields "throughout all of space." This references a scale far beyond that which can reasonably be tested.
Response 5.4 What we perceive as a particle is actually a ripple in a field. We observe particles that have travelled to us from objects which extend as far as the horizon of the observable universe, 13 billion light years. Those particles have travelled throughout all of space, therefore fields must extend throughout all of space.
Objection 5.5 Can you present falsifiable data which indicates that quantum fields exist "throughout all of space" and can you point to the evidence which confirms that "quantum fields go back in time to the big bang itself?" Please provide such ofr that and your other sweeping, unsupported claims--thanks!
Response 5.5: The "falsifiable data" for the existence of quantum fields throughout all of space is the fact that particles reach us having travelled throughout all of space. Quantum fields describe (and predict) how particles travel through space. That's falsifiable because Quantum Field Theory makes predictions which have verified by experiments for 150 years. We know quantum fields go back in time because when we observe particles whose source is say, 13 billion light years away, that shows the field has existed for at least 13 billion years (the photons have travelled for 13 billion years). We know how the various quantum fields evolved from the big bang, because we know the properties of quantum fields and we can calculate how they evolved given the conditions of the universe over time. Each fundamental particle and each fundamental force is the manifestation of a quantum field, and we can calculate when each type of particle and force came into existence (and hence its field). The timeline I provided in step 6 shows when the fields appeared (for example, the fields that give rise to the four fundamental forces were originally one single field, and so on).
Objection 5.6 Please provide links to independent sources that substantiate your claim that quantum fields throughout all of space
Response 5.6 See the links in response 3.1
Objection 5.7: Provide demonstrable evidence that everything you might happen to share of quantum field theory per se--or at least a link to the specific interpretation of it that you are referencing--directly applies to your particular model.
Response 5.7: Again - refer to the links in response 3.1. Note the model isn’t “mine”. It’s a theory that’s been established and tested more successfully than any other, for about 150 years so far as explained in those links.
Objection 5.8: An excellent critique of Jim's model, especially the form and shape of his before-the-universe-existed hypothesis:
Response 5.8: The video clip is not a critique of what I presented. This is John Lennox arguing against M-Theory. I agree with what Lennox says - it doesn't make sense to say "the universe created itself" or that it was "created due to the law of gravity". Those are certainly not arguments that I have ever used.
Response 5.9: This is William Lane Craig creating a straw man argument. He begins by stating, rightly, that from a physical point of view, “nothing” is a sea of fluctuations. He rightly states that particles arise in that environment (but doesn't refer to how that happens). He then ignores all of that and provides a differentdefinition of nothing in which such fluctuations don't exist and refutes that definition instead! Nothing in that video clip refutes what I presented.
Objection 6.1: Just off the top of my head, how is it that "nothingness" is "impossible?" That strikes me as an assumption / presumption on your part since it is unfalsifiable--but then again so are all of your regressive steps.
Response 6.1: The question regarding nothingness is covered in step 5: In the complete absence of particles, a field still exists. As with all fields, it is governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which explains nothing in reality can be still (because its state would be pre-determined which breaks a fundamental rule of quantum physics). This state of nothingness is called the vacuum state and it is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. It contains no physical particles at all. What we discover when we examine this state is that empty space is not empty: Nothingness is not nothing but is actually a field full of bubbles and activity, known as quantum vacuum fluctuations. These can't be observed directly but they can be modelled mathematically and look like this... http://oi68.tinypic.com/wtwojm.jpg Quantum fluctuations are not just theoretical – they have been measured, they are real, and their effect has been observed (for example, they give rise to the Casimir effect).
Objection 6.1.1 You can't falsify 6.1, Jim. There is no place in the universe that would not have forces interfering with the "perfect vacuum" you describe, and that "perfect vacuum" thus can't exist for testing purposes.
Response 6.1.1 I have described in Step 5 and in objection 7.2 how such a state of nothingness was predicted, can be established, has been established, and has made predictions which have been successfully tested. It also explains various observed phenomena. Here is a good overview. As mentioned in 6.1, the basis of vacuum fluctuations is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle Δx Δp ≥ h/4π where Δx is uncertainty of position, Δp is uncertainty of momentum and h is Planck’s constant. You could argue unknown forces are causing the effect but it’s an unlikely coincidence that the effect would appear exactly as predicted in the absence of extraneous forces.
Objection 6.2: Your biggest presumption is that materialism--or rather mindless, purposeless processes--constitute the fundamental basis of reality. But since that presumption means you have nothing else to reference other than such processes, at least your outline ought to have a credible, consistent basis for that presumption on its own terms
Response 6.2a: You refer to a presumption I haven’t made. The basis of the model is described in step 0. I am simply presenting the evidence that describes the fabric of reality (see also 6.2e below). If you think any of that evidence is false then refer to it specifically and explain why.
Response 6.2b: You use the words “evidence” and “process” interchangeably. They are very different things.
Response 6.2c: The credible, consistent basis is evidence – facts and information.
Response 6.2d: If reality can be described in terms of mindless, purposeless processes (whatever that means), why attempt to describe it in any other way? However, note that I have never claimed that the processes I describe are mindless or purposeless.
Response 6.2e: The word "fabric" is, like many words, the best we can do when trying to describe a subatomic world that is beyond our intuition and visualisation. For example, spacetime is not a fabric in the physical sense, but it's the best we can do in terms of analogy. An excellent explanation of analogies versus reality is provided here. "One of the most paradoxical ideas to wrap your head around in all of physics is that the equations that describe the Universe are just that: equations describing things we can physically observe. We can no more observe the ‘fabric of space’ than we can observe the nothingness of empty spacetime; it simply exists. Any visualization we attempt to assign to it, whether it’s a 2D fabric, a 3D grid, or a baking ball of dough, is just that: a human-inspired creation. The theory itself doesn’t demand it."
Objection 7.1: I'm glad that you point out yet again that you are dealing with assumptions, as you correctly pointed out before.
Response 7.1: When our respective models describe the environment before our universe appeared, then of course we both have to make assumptions. What I'm doing is presenting the evidence which my assumptions are based on.
Objection 7.2: Of course there is no way to falsifiably test the assumption that the existence of quantum fields in "nothingness" was what preceded the creation of our universe, much less it alone was all that "preceded" the universe…
Response 7.2: [Ignoring the tautology of “falsifiably test”] Step 6 describes how the structure of our universe becomes simpler and simpler as we go back in time. From that, it is reasonable to assume that the trend continues until we reach the simplest possible state, which is nothingness. From step 5, we know that empty space is itself a quantum field and we know that field is not empty. Nothingness is not nothing but is actually a field full of bubbles and activity, known as quantum vacuum fluctuations. These can't be observed directly but they can be modelled mathematically and their effect has been predicted and tested (it's known as the Casimir effect).
Objection 7.3 …much less that it "caused" our universe to come into existence in and of itself...
Response 7.3. Obviously, it is impossible to test events that occurred prior to the Big Bang. All we can do is use logic and assumptions based on the evidence that is available. As explained in step 7, it can be proven mathematically that quantum fluctuations can cause a universe to appear. So if our universe appeared from an environment of nothingness, and we know that nothingness consists of quantum fluctuations, then the theory predicts that the Bug Bang would leave exactly the kind of evidence that we observe. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that our universe could have appeared as a result of a quantum fluctuation in the zero point field (which is what nothing consists of). Of course, the idea that a zero point field can result in universes can’t be tested using existing technology, but it can be demonstrated mathematically. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf
Objection 7.4 …much less caused "multiverses" to come into existence. Since your hypothesis requires the existence of "multiverses”
Response 7.4: The model presented here does not require the existence of multiple universes. Rather, multiple universes are a predicted consequence of the model. The link you’ve provided to Max Tegmark's article explains the nature of multiverse arguments extremely clearly: I am not making the outright claim that multiple universes exist. It's a logical argument, specifically “modus ponens”: If X implies Y and X is true, then Y must also be true. If a theory X has enough experimental support for us to take it seriously, then we must take seriously also all its predictions Y, even if these predictions are themselves untestable (multiple universes, for example).
Objection 7.5: Consider this… https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-parallel-universes-unscientific-nonsense-insider-tips-for-criticizing-the-multiverse/
Response 7.5: An excellent article by Max Tegmark which supports my point of view regarding the multiverse.
Objection 7.6: The CBR is thought to be a product of the "big bang" itself, not of any state that "preceded" it. It is thought to have appeared about 378,000 years AFTER the big bang. You refer to conditions in the universe after the big bang--not "before." (But also be aware of what "Big Bang" actually means)
Response 7.6a: The CBR is obviously a product of the Big Bang and obviously appeared after the Big Bang (see step 16 within step 6). But what existed before in order to give it its structure? What I’m referring to is the “DNA” of the cosmic background radiation, the stuff that existed before the period you refer to which gave it those patterns.
Response 7.6b: As an analogy, imagine a child blowing soap bubbles. Consider the skin of the bubble to be the CBR. The properties of that skin and its swirling patterns tell you something about where it may have come from (in this case a bottle or bowl of soap fluid which itself has different properties to the “stretched” liquid forming the skin of the bubble).
Objection 7.7: If multiverses [sic] necessarily result from your model--which you have actually claimed to be the case--they are an integral part of your model--period!
Response 7.7: The multiverse does not necessarily result from my model and I have never made such a claim. The multiverse is a possible consequence of quantum fluctuations, but my model assumes only one universe, because currently, there is only evidence of one universe. As an analogy, if you threw hundreds of apple seeds onto an area of land, you might get one tree, or two, or hundreds. Or none! A forest is a possible consequence of your sowing but a forest may not necessarily result.
Objection 7.8: If a multiverse must necessarily arise from your model, then it is a multiverse hypothesis--period!
Response 7.8: A multiverse does not necessarily arise from my model. A multiverse is one of many things that the model predicts. Given that QFT has made more successful predictions than any other theory ever, one should take the existence of a multiverse seriously. However, QFT is not a multiverse hypothesis. The Big Bang theory also predicts a multiverse. Would you refer to that theory as a multiverse hypothesis?
Objection 7.8.1 Your statement that the Big Bang Theory predicts a multiverse is false. Would I refer to the Big Bang theory as a multiverse hypothesis? Of course not!
Response 7.8.1 It's not false - it is true. The Big Bang theory predicts a multiverse, specifically a Level I multiverse emerging from the inflationary period. Recent predictions made by inflation theory have been confirmed by cosmic microwave background experiments, making it the most popular theory for what happened at the Big Bang. Refer to Max Tegmark's article in the link in Objection 7.5 for further detail.
Objection 7.9: You're fudging on admitting that your model would allow for the creation of multiverses--hence the absolute certainty that your model would supposedly create multiverses, given infinite time--hence putting your model, necessarily, in the "multiverse" spectrum of hypotheses. Capiche?
Response 7.9a: According to the model I’ve presented, a multiverse would not necessarily occur. The multiverse is a prediction. My model does not require a multiverse. My model is not a multiverse hypothesis. My model does not “create multiverses”.
Response 7.9b: You make the point that if something is possible then it will happen given infinite time. That is true. So, if a multiverse is possible and time is infinite, then a multiverse is bound to exist. But is a multiverse possible and/or is time infinite? I don’t know. If one of those assumptions is false then a multiverse is not bound to exist. In any case, such an argument is not part of the model presented here, as it is a model of how our universe came into existence, period.
Objection 7.10 Any model which predicts a "multiverse" is pure fantasy
Response 7.10: I'm sure it's possible to dream up such a model which is pure fantasy, but the models which I'm referring to are not fantasy - they are predictions arising from successful theories. Max Tegmark makes the point very well (see objection 7.5. above). The theories I'm referring to in this model, involve what logicians know as “...modus ponens: that if X implies Y and X is true, then Y must also be true. Specifically, "if some scientific theory X has enough experimental support for us to take it seriously, then we must take seriously also all its predictions Y, even if these predictions are themselves untestable (including the multiverse)."
Objection 7.10.1 Your model still predicts a multiverse, no matter how you try to fudge the semantics, and hence opens up another can of worms of improbability.
Response 7.10.1 Yes the model does predict a multiverse, as do string theory and the big bang theory (and religion come to that). But it's not a can of worms!
Objection 7.11: There remain questions as to the purturbation [sic] model of QFT, such as in this report:
Response 7.11: Perturbation is not a model of QFT - it is a mathematical approach which solves a complex problem by comparing it with a similar one for which the solution is known. QFT requires some eye wateringly complex mathematics and a way to deal with infinite integrals among other problems. Perturbation techniques have proved to be very successful. The paper provided in the objection counters the objection:
"What ends up being the really salient puzzle about QFT perturbation theory is why it is so successful— why, that is, the approximations it produces are often staggeringly good ones."
"The rigour and inconsistency problems turn out to be red herrings on the reading of the perturbative approach I have developed then. Worries about the internal coherence of the QFT perturbation theory have, I suggest, largely sprung from a misunderstanding."
Objection 7.12 There is substantial disagreement over whether vacuum fluctuations can be defined or even exist, as in this interesting exchange: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_vacuum_energy_really_exist
Response 7.12: That exchange is not about vacuum fluctuations (which have been shown to exist). It is about vacuum energy. We know vacuum energy exists because its effects can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift. The discussion centres on the measurement of vacuum energy across the universe… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy.
Objection 7.13: Is there such a thing as "atemporal causality?" In other words, is it possible for there to be causality without the existence of time--or of matter or space either, for that matter (no pun intended).
Such is the nature of the issue when one begins to speculate on the cause of the Big Bang itself. We’ve pretty much determined that you can’t have time without matter and matter without energy and energy without time, so if the Big Bang was the moment at which any single one of them began to exist then they must have all begun to exist together.
Despite what anyone says about quantum mechanics, there is no point in which we should accept the answer that “nothing caused something”--especially in a model when nothingness itself has been misrepresented as "something" that would have to pre-exist the basis of its existence: a vast sea ("space") of quantum fields and quantum foam ("something") seething with activity (occurring in "time").
And even in quantum mechanics one shouldn’t confuse the efficient cause (the agent which causes changes within the material) with the material cause (the underlying structure). All that we can say is that we do not know what the efficient cause is.
So how could the Big Bang have happened? Well, rather than just saying we “don’t know” there are some things we can indeed logically derive. We can immediately conclude that whatever caused the Big Bang must be timeless, matterless and energy independent. That would pretty much shoot down the basis of Jim's hypothesis--but not mine.
Response 7:13 This point consists mainly text selectively copied from this source. (The copied text is highlighted in yellow above). The copied text comes from one of many answers given on a Quora page to this question "If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, how could the Big Bang possibly have happened?". Let's deal with the answer that the apologist has chosen, but let's also consider the whole answer, rather than the edited version provided by the Apologist.
7.13a) Any discussion about conditions prior to the existence our universe is purely speculative.
7.13b) The copied text was originally written in response to this question: If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, how could the Big Bang possibly have happened? The author concludes with a paragraph that wasn't copied:
"Either this means there are alternate forms of time, matter and energy that are orthogonal to our understanding of time matter and energy or there are other forms of existence above and beyond these requirements. We could call these Extra-Natural (the natural being that which is constrained by time matter and energy). What does that mean, it means that scientifically and logically and rationally we can say that there’s far more out there than the 4 dimensions that we can measure with our current senses and sensors and maybe far more out there than just this Universe."
That conclusion seems reasonable (but note point a).
7.13c) It has not been determined that we can't have time without matter. The nature of time is unknown, and it could even be an illusion. Time is not an operator in quantum mechanics. In quantum field theory, position and time are both labels on operators.
7.13d) Time and space are not requirements of the environment that existed prior to our universe. Quantum fluctuations arise from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (See Step 5 and also response 6.1). So what we can say is that whatever cause our universe to appear could be timeless and massless and energy independent, or maybe it isn't. Either way, quantum fluctuations are still a valid option.
7.13e-1) The model presented here explores the consequences of a first cause that is the simplest possible environment, devoid of particles and forces. We have to assume a first cause is limitless in size (because if not, there would be something beyond it). For the sake of brevity, let's refer to this Uncaused Cause Environment as UCE. Let is also adopt the assumptions within the objection, namely: whatever caused the Big Bang must be timeless, matterless and energy independent
7.13e-2) I have already assumed the UCE is matterless, because I assume it contains no particles and no forces. Let's also assume it's timeless and energy independent. We also have to assume that there are locations within the UCE (because if there were no locations, there would be nowhere for a first cause). What we can’t assume is "space" or "dimensions" as we perceive them in our universe. What we must now do is check if these assumptions are compatible with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. In other words, can this weird UCE that we can’t even visualise, contain quantum fluctuations? And what exactly is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?
7.13e-3) Heisenberg’s equation tells us that for a pair of conjugate variablesit is impossible to have a precisely determined value of both variables at the same time. This is why quantum fluctuations exist. Here is the equation formulated for location and momentum:
ΔpΔx ≥ h/4π
This equation tells us that the more accurately a particle’s position is known (the smaller Δx is), the less accurately the momentum is known. As Δx gets smaller then Δp must get bigger to balance the equation. (h is the Planck constant). But does it apply to the UCE which is beyond (and before) our universe?
7.13e-4) A brief interlude to illustrate how the equation works (feel free to skip this and jump to 7.13e-5 below). Let’s apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to an everyday example, say a cricket ball (or a baseball if you prefer). The mass of the ball is about 0.145 kg. Let's suppose a radar gun can measure the speed of the ball to an accuracy of 0.1 mph, which is about 0.045 metres per second. So the uncertainty in the velocity of the ball is 0.045. Since momentum is mass times velocity, this means the uncertainty in the momentum of the ball is 0.145 x 0.045 = 0.0065. Heisenberg’s equation allows us to calculate the uncertainty in the position of the ball:
Δx ≥ h/4Δpπ
And when we plug in the numbers, Δx comes out to 0.000000000000000000000000000008 millimetres. That distance is so small it can’t be measured, especially for a moving cricket ball. The upshot of this is that uncertainty in position, like all quantum effects, is not a part of human experience. The uncertainty principle is only noticeable in the subatomic world, in the fabric of reality. The fact is that we can't know both the position and the momentum of a particle.
7.13e-5) We are assuming that the UCE is timeless and energy independent. (time and energy are conjugate variables). So we need a form of Heisenberg’s equation that does not require time or energy, and this what we’ve already seen in (7.13e-3) above. Can a fluctuation have momentum in the UCE? The answer is yes, because the momentum of a massless particle is h/λ (where λ is the wavelength). Can the fluctuation have a position? Again the answer is yes (see 7.13e-2). Hence Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle applies even in an environment that is timeless and matterless and energy independent. Or to be precise, we have no reason to assume that it does not apply. The UCE itself is of course, speculation, but it's speculation based on logic and evidence, as far as it is possible to do so.
Objection 7.14 Your model assumes space time, and quantum fields pre-existed the Big Bang.
Response 7.14: No - the model I've presented assumes nothing pre-existed the Big Bang except what's described in Step 7. The vacuum fluctuations which could have produced our universe are an attribute of nothing. See above.
Objection 7:15: You proffer not an infinitely dense point with no dimensions, but a vast sea--not of nothingness, but of quantum fields and quantum foam--not timeless, but with interactions that would have to be defined in terms of elapsed time!
Response 7.15: As already explained, prior to our universe existing I assume there were no quantum fields and no interactions. Those fields are a feature of our universe as described in step 3. (The "infinitely dense point" comment is perhaps referring to a singularity? I assume no singularity.) Elapsed time is not required in the "vast sea of nothingness" (see 7.13)
Objection 7:16: You proffer not an infinitely dense point with no dimensions, but a vast sea--not of nothingness, but of quantum fields and quantum foam--not timeless, but with interactions that would have to be defined in terms of elapsed time! But nothingness is impossible, so we find ourselves in an infinite vacuum field “ocean”, seething with quantum fluctuations.
Response 7:16: "An infinitely dense point with no dimensions" sounds like a singularity. It used to be thought that the initial state of our universe was a singularity, but that's not the case.The "vast sea of nothingness" is prior to any singularity and it's where our universe would have been born. As I explained in step 5, the "vast sea of nothingness" does not consist of quantum fields, it consists of quantum vacuum fluctuations. There is no assumption of "elapsed time". Again, see 7.13 above.
Objection 7.17: Whatever effect may be observed within our post-Big Bang universe is no basis for assuming the same in a hypothetical pre-Big Bang situation.
Response 7.17: This was explained in response 0.8, but essentially, anything "pre-Big Bang" is speculative, but my approach is to speculate based on the evidence available (vacuum fluctuations in this case) and logic (the trend towards greater simplicity as we go back in time for example). Our observations of nature also contradict the assumption in the objection: We observe effects which are a basis for assumptions on the origin of those effects. For example, the DNA of a living thing is a valid basis for determining the DNA of its ancestors. Or look at it another way - one would never argue that the existence of apples on an apple tree are no basis for assuming the "pre-existence" of apples. It seems perfectly logical to me to assume that the fabric of our universe provides clues as to what existed before.
Objection 7.18: You did not address my objection to your proffering a pre-existing situation where space, time and "stuff" are all present, in some form, and that would contradict the infinitely dense, timeless dimensionless situation from which the BB is believed to have taken place.
Response 7.18: Actually this was covered in 7.13. Also note that I have never suggested such a pre-existing situation. My only suggestion prior to our universe appearing is the existence of nothingness, the properties of which are explained by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I’m not assuming the existence of any of the stuff you’ve listed. Also note in response 7.16 that there may never have been an infinitely dense, timeless, dimensionless situation (I’m assuming you mean a Big Bang singularity)
Objection 7.19: This clip from Brian Greene suggested string theory as a possible solution for quantum gravity but you're ignoring the objection itself: that the tumultuous behavior of the micro-realm of quantum mechanics conflicts with the gentle, predictable variations in General Relativity:
Response 7.19: The "tumultuous behavior of the micro-realm of quantum mechanics" may not apply to gravity. Step 5 explains that the field associated with gravity is space and time itself. But is space-time itself a quantum field? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. QFT predicts the behaviour of such a field were it to exist, and that prediction can be tested by searching for the resulting graviton particle. It would be extremely hard to find due to its extremely weak force, but the search is on.
Objection 7.20: You assume the existence of quantum fluctuations in what you call "a sea of quantum foam"--and as a dynamic phenomenon, those fluctuations would necessarily occur in "time."
Response 7.20: I'm not making that assumption. The "sea of quantum foam" is the best way I can think to describe something that is beyond our intuition, something we can't visualise. That "sea" could be timeless and consist of dimensions we can't imagine. I refer again to the article you provided in Objection 7:13 which speculates about conditions prior to our universe existing... "Either this means there are alternate forms of time, matter and energy that are orthogonal to our understanding of time matter and energy or there are other forms of existence above and beyond these requirements. We could call these Extra-Natural (the natural being that which is constrained by time matter and energy). What does that mean, it means that scientifically and logically and rationally we can say that there’s far more out there than the 4 dimensions that we can measure with our current senses and sensors and maybe far more out there than just this Universe."
Objection 7.20: You argue that nothing can happen in a timeless, dimensionless, infinitely dense point--hence your fudging on time, space and material in your model! In any case,
Response 7.20: No I don't. An infinitely dense point has mass and therefore energy. are you referring to a singularity? If so, the vacuum field is where that singularity came from (assuming our universe began as as singularity, which is not certain).
Objection 7.21: You also have the problem of infinite regression, Jim, which can only reference processes without ever accounting for their ultimate cause.
Response 7.21: The concept of the uncaused cause does away with infinite regression. The model I presented assumes nothing is the environment within which vacuum fluctuations are the uncaused cause of our universe.
Objection 7.22: I find it fascinating that you never refer to precisely what the standard model predicts, on what basis, and what it doesn't.
Response 7.22: This was answered in Response 3.1 but basically, The Standard Model successfully predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks and the Higgs Boson, before they were observed. This is a good overview. Also, let us not forget the successful predictions provided by Relativity.
Objections 7.23: There are always competing hypotheses to the standard model - here's an account of one:
Response 7.23: That's not a competing hypothesis (yet). What we have here is a discrepancy between theory and experiment. There are three possibilities as the article explains...
"The first one is the most alluring: that there’s a new physical phenomenon out there, and you’ve just discovered the first hint of it. It could be a new particle, a new field, a new interaction, or some other scientific surprise, possibly worthy of revolutionizing how we understand nature. The second one is mundane: that either theorists or experimentalists have made an error. But the third possibility is likely what’s at play here: that there’s an effect from a known physical cause that’s at the heart of this discrepancy, and we haven’t thought to include it until now. If gravitation truly explains the muon’s magnetic moment anomaly, it’s back to square one. The Standard Model, victorious in every particle-based experiment thus far, will win yet again."
Objection 7.24: You refer to there being an environment existing prior to our universe appearing. That environment could be a separate "realm"--that is to say, not governed by the same laws of physics yet being the source of them. A model of extreme hyperconsciousness in which all of "reality" exists only in the consciousness of that source comes to mind.
Response 7.24: Obviously we can only speculate about what such an environment could be so of course it perhaps is not governed by the same laws of physics (I know what you mean but note that the laws of physics do not "govern" - they describe). I'm assuming the environment is nothing because that's the simplest option which can result in a universe and it's easy to imagine nothing as the default state of existence. "Extreme hyperconsciousness in which all of reality exists..." is an extremely complex thing, not to mention unintelligible. It sounds similar to the simulation hypothesis. Let's just call it a "thing" for now. This thing contradicts itself, because if there is a thing in which all of reality exists, then that thing is not part of reality, i.e. it's not real. Any thing which gives birth our universe has to be part of reality. Assuming this thing is the uncaused cause, it raises more questions than it answers, for example, why it is so complex? Where did such a complex thing come from?
Objection 10.1 If you're going to focus on the "data" and the "equations" you're going to run into the problem of not being able to calculate quantum gravity--not to mention other variables which to a greater or lesser extent aren't precisely defined
Response 10.1 I don’t know about “calculations” – but it’s true that quantum gravity is a theory that is still being formulated and the subject of intense research. But as I said elsewhere, the model I’ve presented is based on what is known, rather than what is unknown. And no one knows if quantum gravity is real, in other words, no one knows if gravity is quantised in the first place.
Objection 10.2 We don't know how successful [QFT] predictions are since it is conjecture based on a mathematical equation with many values, ranging from those not precisely defined to quantum gravity, which mathematically is completely unknown and perhaps unknowable.
Response 10.2a We do know how successful QFT’s predictions are, because they have been verified by observation and experimentally to a level of accuracy unprecedented with any other theory.
Response 10.2b The mathematical equation does not have many values - it has many variables, all of which are precisely defined.
Response 10.2c Quantum gravity is mathematically definable but it's true that an agreed definition is still a work in progress. It's also true that the gravitation quantum field would manifest as a hypothetical particle, the graviton. Rather than saying the graviton is "unknowable" what we should say is it's "directly undetectable". The issue is that the predicted properties of the graviton, if they are correct, make it almost impossible to detect as they would be unimaginably "light" and rare (recent observations of gravitational waves suggest what the graviton's mass might be). However...
Response 10.2d ...we did not confirm quantum electrodynamics experimentally by detecting photons. QED produced predictions which were tested to confirm the electromagnetic field is quantised. So, a theory of quantum gravity it will make predictions that can be tested to confirm that the gravitational field is quantised. In other words, we do not need to detect gravitons directly - we need to test the predictions of quantum gravity theory to indirectly confirm the existence of gravitons.
Objection 10.3 Quantum gravity was a component in the equation you refer to in your step 7 as a component in attempting to justify your model, remember?
Response 10.3 There is no mention of quantum gravity in step 7 and quantum gravity is not a component of the equation in step 8. The reference to gravity in step 8 is from General relativity, not quantum fields. No one knows if gravity can be quantised . General relativity is the current description of gravitation. It is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and has an incredible track record of successful predictions.
Objection 10.4: Quantum mechanics supposedly describes and can account for three out of four forces, excluding quantum gravity
Response 10.4: Quantum gravity is not a force. Quantum mechanics and Relativity account for all four fundamental forces. Quantum gravity would explain gravity if gravity was quantised, but we don't know if it is. Gravity may not be a quantum phenomenon.
Objection 10.5: There are points of tension between Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics as described here…
Response 10.5: That is a very good overview. Some people do suggest that a quantum mechanical description of gravity is necessary such a description is hypothesised. I personally think it’s a good hypothesis but it has yet to be tested. However I don’t see how that is an objection to the model I described.
Objection 10.6: On the subject of earthbound measurements, note that there is an uncomfortably large uncertainty when measuring the gravitational constant (G) compared to all the other constants, as described here
Response 10.6: Excellent article. First thing to note is that the uncertainty in the measurement of G is actually very small by normal standard so the key phrase is “compared to all the other constants” because those constants have been measured to extraordinary levels of precision and have set a very high bar. It’s true that measurements of G are difficult to measure here on earth, because gravitational effects vary depending on where the earth is in its orbit , so presumably a deep space experimentwill be the best way to achieve the amazing precision we have with the other constants (they are not affected by gravity). From a general point of view, it's not valid to dismiss all "earth bound measurements" just because one out of many is problematic.
Step
|
Original Post Date
|
Step 0
|
18/6/18
|
Step 1
|
15/5/18
|
Step 2
|
17/5/18
|
Step 3
|
22/5/18
|
Step 4
|
25/5/18
|
Step 5
|
28/5/18
|
Step 6
|
31/5/18
|
Step 7
|
1/6/18
revised 18/10/18 |
Step 8
|
2/7/18
|
Step 9
|
27/7/18
|
Step 10
|
27/7/18
|
Step 11
|
27/7/18
|
Can any math's equation that adds up be considered 'reality'?
ReplyDeleteAdmiring to dark matter and dark force not 'fitting in' to the math's rather undermines ALL the equations does it not?
Can any math's equation that adds up be considered 'reality'?
ReplyDeleteAdmiting to dark matter and dark force not 'fitting in' to the math's rather undermines ALL the equations does it not?
Regarding your first point, it depends what we mean by reality in this context. Roger Penrose provides a good overview in Chapter 1 of The Road to Reality: "I am aware that there will still be many readers who find difficulty with
Deleteassigning any kind of actual existence to mathematical structures. Let me make the request of such readers that they merely broaden their notion of what the term ‘existence’ can mean to them. The mathematical forms of Plato’s world clearly do not have the same kind of existence as do ordinary physical objects such as tables and chairs. They do not have spatial locations; nor do they exist in time. Objective mathematical notions must be thought of as timeless entities and are not to be regarded as being conjured into existence at the moment that they are first humanly
perceived. The particular swirls of the Mandelbrot set did not attain their existence at the moment that they
were first seen on a computer screen or printout. Nor did they come about when the general idea behind the Mandelbrot set was first humanly put forth. Those designs were already ‘in existence’ since the beginning of time, in the potential timeless sense that they would necessarily be revealed precisely in the form that we perceive them today, no matter at what time or in what location some perceiving being might have chosen to examine them.
Regarding your second point, there seems to be an assumption that the standard model has to explain the mechanism for dark matter and dark energy. But those concepts are not predictions of the standard model and may not even be quantum effects. Or maybe they are. Once we know what dark matter and dark energy are (assuming they exist), then we can apply the appropriate tools to explain them.