BEGINNINGS: Physics & Metaphysics*

FUNDAMENTAL UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS AND ASTROPHYSICS.?Paul S. Wesson writes -- 2.12 Are There Problems with the Big Bang??This may sound like a somewhat provocative question, but it is one being asked by an increasing number of workers. It is worth recalling that in most branches of physics, a singularity or place of non-integrability of the equations is discarded as being due to a breakdown of the model. But in 4D general relativity, the big-bang singularity can be quantified via theorems due to Carter, Hawking, Ellis and Penrose, and has previously been taken as a real starting event for the universe. This puts general relativity in a different conceptual class from other theories of physics. Uncomfortable with this, several workers such as Ellis, Cooperstock, Israelit and Rosen have recently constructed 4D cosmological models which have no initial singularity but are in tolerable agreement with observations. That models are possible which start from empty Minkowski space but evolve into reasonable matter-filled cosmologies has been known for some time (Bonnor 1960; Wesson 1985a). It is also possible that the big bang, if it ever occurred, was the signature of a quantum tunneling event (Vilenkin 1982). The same argument can be applied to higher-dimensional Kaluza-Klein cosmologies. Indeed, in 5D there exist models which are flat and empty, but whose 4D subspaces are curved and have matter with properties in excellent agreement with observations (Wesson 1999). . These considerations make it justifiable to ask if there really was a big bang.?--?Paul S. Wesson Department of Physics University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada prepared for California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics 366 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 U.S.A.

Complexity. Johan Hansson writes -- Although the four known fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear) are all relatively simple, it is almost always impossible to directly from them in detail predict the behavior of even mildly complex systems. Is this a real aspect of nature, or just a result of our theories so far being formulated in non-ideal ways? The logical possibility also exist that the world is not reductionist (or rather, constructionist), that is, that a handful of fundamental laws are not sufficient to build up (reconstruct) all the complexity that we see around us, but rather that these may have to be supplemented by new (unknown) principles on different scales. We know, however, from both observations and theoretical models, that some complex systems can exhibit surprisingly simple collective behavior, as when, for example, thousands of fireflies spontaneously start blinking in sync without any “conductor” to control them [9]. Disorder apparently spontaneously self-organizes to order, in contrast to the traditional notion that the disorder/entropy must always increase. Many believe that this field of research will be essential for understanding and explaining phenomena such as the origin of life (and what life really is) and how consciousness seemingly miraculously can arise from mindless atoms in the brain. -- The 10 Biggest Unsolved Problems in Physics Johan Hansson? Division of Physics Lule?a University of Technology SE-971 87 Lule?a, Sweden

*************************************************************************

When Albert Einstein appeared to venture into metaphysics with references to "The Old One," the interpretation by others is sometimes that he meant "matter" (boundary conditions for the universe by suggested computer experiments here), and sometimes "mind." Both sides are logically aired with this exploration into beginnings with focus on gravity, the orphan that refuses to belong to the family of the other three natural forces.

Part 1 -- Physics

The current consensus Big Bang theory?requires?"boundary conditions" for the assumed singularity (beginning), which is essentially unknown. The "multiverse" variation to be discussed is that other supposed universes with different sets of natural constants and particles are discounted, rather our territory is posed as a finite portion of a single continuous homogeneous universe with no singularities that is eternal in time and infinite in extent. How our finite-in-time-and-space portion might have come about in order to indicate boundary conditions for our neighborhood is the subject of this Part 1.

The familiar natural constants and particles of our own universe seem just right for the purpose of creating life as we know it. If there was more than one universe with different natural constants and particles in each, we might be here by chance according to adherents -- which might very well be the case without further argument. While this brute force concept is not elegant, who says nature has to be elegant. A common term for this approach is the fallback "anthropic principle." But questions actually multiply. How did these supposed countless other universes come to be? What is the physical mechanism for developing different sets of natural constants? What are these countless other natural constant sets and derived particle sets? What are the boundary conditions for these other countless universes? How can they be engaged for physical confirmation? And so on. It is difficult enough to explain one set of natural constants and particles and to fully engage our own universe. Being completely out of reach of physical confirmation, this multiverse concept is much too broad and speculative to many for serious scientific study, indicating a sign of desperation here. Also, this concept needlessly clashes with certain social sensibilities.

PHYSICAL STAGE: Determining boundary conditions for the current consensus Big Bang theory, where the initial singularity of this theory requires mathematical/physical boundary conditions for greater precision. A singularity here is an impassable boundary between our universe and that which preceded our universe. If?absolutely?nothing came before (not even spacetime or the quantum vacuum, which are quite complex), there would be no discernable boundary conditions -- no conditions available to stage let alone result in our universe. No stage, no quantum vacuum, no quantum fluctuation. Or, no stage, no spacetime, no singularity.

Instead of postulating an indefinite number of other universes (separated by singularities or impassable boundaries) outside of our own in order to bracket the Big Bang singularity, let us begin by posing only one universe -- a continuous extension our own familiar one.

The most direct approach would be to postulate an infinite space(time) beyond our visible portion. This is because one thing is more direct than two things (Occam's Razor). These two things would be "space" and "that which is not space." This complication implies a boundary, or singularity, between the two, requiring boundary conditions -- which are completely unknown, making any calculation about the singularity incomplete. The present situation. Another term for space in general relativity is "the pure gravitational field." So space is not nothing.

What remains, then, is space infinite in extent and eternal in time. Very simply, boundless space. One thing. Then how could our finite portion (i.e. visible stars and galaxies) of this infinite background have begun? This question is also asked by specialists, and just about any curious layman already. But at least now there might be?something?physical?to begin with -- the pure unbounded gravitational field -- a field not anywhere pinched off, so speak.

EPISODIC WAVES:?Consider an ocean of water on Earth. The surface of this water can be thought of as a field, in that a field is something sensitive to itself. A disturbance anywhere is felt throughout in principle by wave transmission. Disturbance can begin anywhere in the field, and can cancel or reinforce. A reinforced wave is often termed an episodic wave.?Such waves overwhelm ships at sea and seaside communities from time to time, even when the surrounding seas are relatively calm. The more extensive the field the greater the frequency and amplitude of episodic waves by and large. Such waves could be maximized in an eternal infinite gravitational field. In the language of quantum theory, this would be instead of a field fluctuation, a vacuum fluctuation. In that the scale of the system has not been set (no non-zero rest mass particles are yet apparent), a quantum fluctuation is equally posed. A possible physical cause of our universe, by concentrating sufficient energy in a given locale by reinforced gravitational waves, or nascent particle, or nascent singularity (on the verge of qualification).

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS: ?Given such a gravitational field there could be other episodic waves -- with only one set of natural constants and particle types in each, in that only one type of continuous space was postulated (an extension of our own). Thus only one universe with potential for episodes, with no distinct boundaries among them, and at least one episodic gravitational wave of sufficient energy to produce our particular episode. The episodic wave energy quantity condition might be inferred by noting the mass/energy of our own episode, provided the quantity beyond our visible portion can be estimated with sufficient accuracy; this would be considered the principal boundary condition, in that it could fix the scale of the model. However, episodes, and their possible distributions, might be formed with other amplitudes -- something open to computer modeling. Additional parameters are mentioned below.

COMPUTER MODELLING:?The usual multiverse concept is distasteful also because it seems out of the realm of physical examination. But narrowing the concept to our known single episode in an infinite and eternal spacetime with a single set of natural constants and particles, the use of computer modeling becomes focused (minimal parameters) and calculable by computer simulation, at least in a proportional model sense. The initial state of the model infinite gravitational field -- of certain and varied "stiffness" and "damping" -- could be a random generation of small disturbances, to mimic a field that should be inherently unstable (modeling eternal and infinite conditions), causing the generation of cancelled and reinforced gravitational waves, approaching one another from random directions resulting possibly in a reinforced clash of particularly high amplitude. Then note could be taken of the distribution of such unusual disturbances. Perhaps only certain "stiffness" and "damping" field value pairs will produce the desired (episodic) effects, which might reinforce theoretical calculations. Also, the frequencies and simultaneous locations of input disturbances might be varied; these parameters are prominent in episodic ocean waves. This might close on formal mathematical/physical boundary conditions suitable for the assumed Big Bang singularity, and a refinement of this theory, to facilitate the union of relativity and quantum theories -- given the fields of spacetime and/or the quantum vacuum.

Part 2 -- Metaphysics

It was thought the galaxy was the universe not too long ago.

According to general relativity, space (understood as spacetime) is something "tangible" in that it can be "curved," shaped with proper coaxing; another term for space is "the pure gravitational field." The "hand" for shaping space is mass/energy (mathematically equivalent). Curve space enough and particles emerge.

A compact (Occam's Razor) way to look at things, before "sufficient energy" to produce stable particles, is to assume space existed before such energy was concentrated. Infinite space is more direct than finite space (or no space), because with finite space two items are necessary -- "space" and "that which is not space," implying a boundary of sorts, and unknown boundary conditions, i.e., a singularity. One thing then, just boundless space.

Einstein has already asked, "Did the Old One have a choice in creating the universe?" Choice implies self-awareness. Can infinite space containing sufficient and varied curves be aware of itself? ("Pre-universe") space that has slight curves is conceivable, as the surface of an ocean of water is forever waving, with portions above and below sea level always apparent with the slightest coaxing by various aspects. Such a surface, momentarily isolated, would have a?net?undulation?energy about sea level of zero. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics comes to mind as well. Such a scenario implies "episodic waves" able to cause great effect. Such waves are the joining of various small waves of varied frequency and direction such that the overall effect is a wave of reinforced amplitude, as when an unexpectedly large ocean wave overcomes a ship at sea or seaside community, even though the remaining seas are relatively calm. The more extensive the surface the greater the probability of increased frequency and amplitude of episodic waves. Such would be maximized in an eternal infinite gravitational field.

HYPOTHESIS: Let said episodic wave be the cause of our portion of the universe. Then, no choice? Not necessarily. In said eternal infinite space there could be more than one episodic wave. Each emerging from a distinct locality, could be subject to quantum entanglement and act as a single cell -- a single cell among other such cells (universe of separate episodic and other waves with only one set of natural constants) individually and in concert expanding and contracting and merging and reemerging. Infinite space/particles aware of itself -- physical basis for the choosing mind of the Old One?

LOADED DICE: The self-awareness of certain known physical life forms evolving from the same familiar natural constants and particles as in said broadened continuous universe, i.e. us, in that only?one?continuous type of infinite space was postulated (Occam's Razor again, and no singularities). Other similar episodes imply other life forms with self-awareness -- at least one familiar species. It would seem the Old One plays with?loaded?dice.

MIND AND/OR MATTER? This is not the common anthropic approach (of unknown and varied natural constants in varied separate universes). The "multiverse" here is seen as a broader but continuous single universe, consisting of "episodes," of the same familiar natural constants and particles -- some waves positive (regions of compressing space or positive curvature) and some negative (regions of expanding space or negative curvature, like ours)**-- with a net energy of zero. The only premise is an eternal infinite pure (unstable) gravitational field -- boundless space. It would seem a related age-old question remains. Which came first, mind (i.e. Plato, idealism, consciousness) or matter (i.e. Aristotle, materialism, science)? But given said eternity, the question becomes moot

_____

*Update of "Edge of the Universe: Physics and Metaphysics of Gravity"

** While the visible portion of our Universe is considered flat, this is not to 100% confidence. An accelerating Universe, as observed, implies an open system and negative curvature.

RELATED MATERIAL:

This model employs Bohm's "quantum potential" and particle trajectories to a modification of general relativity that yields no singularities and an infinite universe:?Physics Letters B?Volume 741,?4 February 2015, Pages 276-279 Cosmology from quantum potential?AhmedFarag AliabSauryaDas?https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057?Cosmology from quantum potential - ScienceDirect

Original paper:?Bohm, David, 1952, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II”,?Physical Review, 85(2): 166–193. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166?(free from APS when accessed through libraries) [Essentially, "hidden variables" here can be the initial condition, exact location in a slit in the two-slit experiment, of the particle just before the particle assumes one of the trajectories to the recording screen. This initial condition is immeasurable, and therefore considered "hidden"; nonetheless, it is a real and fundamental variable in this experiment, in that one of an infinite number of possible trajectories depend on it. There is nothing mysterious (non-physical) about hidden variables in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.]