Anonymous
Resident Member
 
Posts: 168422
Joined: May 2nd, 2009, 5:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Archives
- December 2012
Quantum Gravity final instalment
   December 17th, 2012, 4:57 pm
Quantum Gravity Part 3
   December 16th, 2012, 2:32 am
Quantum Gravity Part 2
   December 15th, 2012, 12:54 am
Quantum Gravity Part 1
   December 14th, 2012, 6:13 am

Search Blogs

Advanced search (keyword or author)

1. Where did we go wrong?

This quantum gravity model of the universe proceeds from some basic principles of fundamental logic. In that sense I regard the problem of quantum gravity as a conceptual one, as opposed to a physical one, but this conceptual approach has profound consequences for the laws of physics.

A quantum theory of gravity cannot be contained within the current conceptual framework of physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics both make predictions about our universe which violate the most fundamental law of reality. Matters must proceed in an orderly fashion. An event can only occur if it has been made to occur by a previous event. This chain of causality must be traceable all the way back to the most fundamental units of reality. A random occurrence, anywhere in this causal chain, is a conceptual absurdity, because this broken chain of causality thus renders the universe incomprehensible. Yet we comprehend it. The philosophy of the bloody obvious seeks to restore common sense to our cosmos and deliver a jolt to our way of thinking.

If we define the universe as being all of physical reality then we can conceive of nothing outside of it. An external frame of reference is a conceptual impossibility. The only thing that exists is existence itself. This offers us a model of the universe which a child could understand, which lends great weight to its validity.

Imagine the universe as an expanding balloon which expands to the point where it can expand no further. It has run out of puff. When this happens it instantly deflates to a point of unimaginable density. This is not infinity, for we live in a finite universe. This is the highest possible energy state of the universe, and it triggers its own big bang, which we perceive as the inflationary phase of the early universe. Off we go again. The laws of physics which we have do not allow us to make meaningful statements about the nature of existence prior to this inflationary episode and thus the laws of physics cannot explain themselves. In a reality that is cyclical and eternal this complication is addressed.

The science of physics got itself into a bit of a conceptual mess in the early 20th century when it discovered three remarkable theories about the nature of reality which led to some extraordinary advances in science and technology. Special relativity, general relativity and the quantum theory have changed our world and kicked us a step up the ladder in the evolution of sentient mind. At least two of these theories are wrong and the third is at best conceptually misleading. Exactly how this got under everybody’s radar is a complete mystery to me, but my guess is that all three of these theories were already too well-entrenched within mainstream physics when it was discovered that the universe was expanding. This was a game-changer which added a layer of subtlety to our laws of physics, and rendered some of them conceptually nonsensical.

My greatest hero, Albert Einstein, started the problem. He formulated his remarkable theory of special relativity from a premise that is false in an expanding universe. The Michelson-Morley experiments had established that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Einstein used this premise to formulate special relativity and thus Einstein’s universe is an entity that exists in three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. So far so good.

But Albert was unaware of the fact that the universe was expanding, so when it came to general relativity he had to put a bit of bullshit into his sums to make them work out nicely. This was the cosmological constant. He was un-embarrassed by this because physicists had been doing this for centuries before him. If the sums don’t work out, we fling in a constant and we’ll sort it out later. Alas nobody ever does. Possibly the most flagrant abuser was the greatest philosophical physicist of them all, Isaac Newton, who needed the universal gravitational constant G, to make his sums work out. Naturally Sir Isaac didn’t realise either that the universe was expanding.

More in part 2...

5 Comments Viewed 4620 times

Comments

RE: Quantum Gravity Part 1

Permanent Linkby BurtJordaan on December 14th, 2012, 8:50 am

Obvious Leo wrote:General relativity and quantum mechanics both make predictions about our universe which violate the most fundamental law of reality.


Who's "fundamental law of reality"? Your own made-up laws?

A random occurrence, anywhere in this causal chain, is a conceptual absurdity, because this broken chain of causality thus renders the universe incomprehensible.


As long as the effect of this 'random occurrence' occurs after the cause, it breaks no chain of events.

When this happens it instantly deflate to a point of unimaginable density. This is not infinity, for we live in a finite universe.


According to which law of physics can it instantly deflate to a point?

I think I'll leave it to others to point out more of the questionable statements in your post. Not a very good way of starting a radically new interpretation of physics.
--
Regards
Jorrie
Last edited by BurtJordaan on December 14th, 2012, 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: October 17th, 2009, 2:19 am
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity Part 1

Permanent Linkby Anonymous on December 14th, 2012, 10:44 am

Thank you Jorrie for your comment. I have made up no new laws of physics. The fundamental law of reality to which I refer is the law of causality. An effect is always preceeded by a cause, never the other way around.

We seem to have struck a semantic problem with the notion of a random occurrence. I define a random occurrence as an event without a cause. I assert that there is no such thing and you seem to agree. An event may have an unknown cause but it cannot have no cause. However the literature of quantum mechanics is infested with phrases such as "random quantum fluctuations" for which no cause is even hypothesised. This is unscientific because it makes an untestable assertion and denies first-order logic.

On your third point regarding the collapse of the universe you have me dead to rights. There is no known law of physics which mandates this. My essay is only a synopsis of a far larger work which deals with this at some length. I offer the "Big Crunch" scenario for the future of our cosmos and I provide a full suite of reasoned argument to support it but it was quite impossible to develop this argument fully in a mere synopsis. In an inadequate summary I'll try this. The universe expands only in the time dimension. The energy which drives this expansion is finite so time cannot expand forever. The time dimension encloses the three spatial dimensions so when the time dimension can expand no further the balloon goes pop and the spatial dimensions vanish. Whilst not exactly mainstream physics the Big Crunch model is by no means a wildly left-field hypothesis and it has been widely canvassed by some very eminent physicists. Complexity theory was also ignored in my synopsis in the interests of brevity, but it is a central plank of my philosophy and is closely linked to this Big Crunch model. I offer no new law of physics which predicts the future of the cosmos but neither do I contradict an existing one because the jury is still out on this matter. I am a logician, not a physicist and my approach is a conceptual one. However I will address each and every "questionable statement" from this conceptual standpoint and let others judge the merits of the case.

Indeed I offer a radically new interpretation of physics and I anticipated a backlash from the physics establishment, seeking to safeguard its turf. This is perfectly in order and I will stand my ground with confidence and courage. However I did not anticipate that criticism might be levelled at me in such a hostile tone. Perhaps I have lived an excessively sheltered life but I always imagined scientists to be above that sort of thing.

Regards Leo
Anonymous
Resident Member
 
Posts: 168422
Joined: May 2nd, 2009, 5:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Comments

RE: Quantum Gravity Part 1

Permanent Linkby BurtJordaan on December 15th, 2012, 2:35 am

Obvious Leo wrote:Special relativity, general relativity and the quantum theory have changed our world and kicked us a step up the ladder in the evolution of sentient mind. At least two of these theories are wrong and the third is at best conceptually misleading. Exactly how this got under everybody’s radar is a complete mystery to me, but my guess is that all three of these theories were already too well-entrenched within mainstream physics when it was discovered that the universe was expanding.

But Albert was unaware of the fact that the universe was expanding, so when it came to general relativity he had to put a bit of bullshit into his sums to make them work out nicely. This was the cosmological constant.


When you put out statements like these, your are bound to get some "hostile toned" responses. The reason is that it points towards a misunderstanding of the very theories that you are criticizing and trying to replace. Hence, you may be perceived as wasting your reader's time.

One example: it seems that you have even forgotten that Einstein did put the cosmological constant into his field equations to make the universe static, because that was the knowledge of the time. When Hubble later observed the universe to be spatially expanding, he had no need for the cosmological constant and decided it is probably zero. In the 1990s, it was found that a Einstein's GR with a non-zero cosmological constant can explain all the large scale observations we have today.

So, my advice to you before you continue: make sure you understand everything there is to understand about the theories that you are criticizing, so that you cannot be labeled as misrepresenting them.

--
Regards
Jorrie
Last edited by BurtJordaan on December 15th, 2012, 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed typo
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: October 17th, 2009, 2:19 am
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity Part 1

Permanent Linkby Anonymous on December 15th, 2012, 4:34 am

Thank you for your advice Jorrie I sincerely mean that. I freely confess that I do not understand everything that there is to understand about the theories I am critcising. I am a logician, not a physicist and my approach is a conceptual one.

I suspect it is my literary style that you find objectionable rather than simply my heretical notions. I make no apology for my style, which is no more than a technical device intended to present difficult concepts in an entertaining and readable form to a lay reader. My intended readership is the general public, not a conclave of high-powered scientists. My presumptuousness does not extend that far. Perhaps if you were to bear this in mind you might regard my words in a more sympathetic light.

Having said that I do not resile from my comments about general relativity and quantum mechanics. I criticise these theories on philosophical grounds and interpret the physics as best I can. This is a perfectly valid approach because I will offer my thesis, not as the opinion of a dilettante logician, but as a scientific hypothesis which yields testable predictions and is therefore falsifiable. My physics is good enough for that. Thus my approach is in perfect accord with the noblest traditions of science and deserves to be evaluated on its simple merits.

Naturally if it is falsified I will eat my manuscript page by page and return to my garden forever.

I must also point out that at least 30 years have elapsed since I first read the proposition that all the constants in the equations of physics are mere mathematical fiddles awaiting eradication by deeper laws. I have since encountered this notion in print several times. I am now able to support this proposition on purely philosophical grounds but felt that it was unnecessary to include these arguments in my essay because a growing number of eminent physicists hold precisely the same views. I have simply stolen them and have made no attempt to pass them off as my own.

Naturally if this proposition is also falsified I will then proceed to eat my garden. Some prestigious geeks and nobel laureates will be there to help me.

Regards Leo
Anonymous
Resident Member
 
Posts: 168422
Joined: May 2nd, 2009, 5:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity Part 1

Permanent Linkby Anonymous on April 5th, 2013, 2:38 am

Leo,
You wrote, "If we define the universe as being all of physical reality then we can conceive of nothing outside of it. An external frame of reference is a conceptual impossibility. The only thing that exists is existence itself."

This assertion is false. Religionists are perfectly willing to accept your definition of the universe, then go on to declare that God is outside that universe. Obviously they are conceiving of something beyond your arbitrary boundary condition. Whether that which they conceive actually exists is not relevant.

A mathematician friend makes an argument for the case that our universe must be contained within another space at least one dimension higher than our own. You would not accept his argument, but if it was true, I would regard that superspace as a part of our universe. Yet I can see that others might think of it as something outside our normal three-dimensional space.

Finally, "existence" is a property. To be a property, it must be a property of something. What? I see no common sense in the claim that at the core of reality there is only a "property;" no noun, just an adjective awaiting an antecedent.
Anonymous
Resident Member
 
Posts: 168422
Joined: May 2nd, 2009, 5:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Who is online

Registered users currently online: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]