Some Personal Opinions about the Physics of Today

[Dubbelosix]

1) I do not believe the universe is random inherently at the quantum level or otherwise. 

 

2) I do not believe that the big bang is all there is in the universe. The misnomer ''hot big bang'' should really have been reserved for models that involve initial conditions with extremely high temperatures. The reason for this will be revealed now.

 

3) I do not believe the universe needs to be described by the current model. There are acceptable alternatives which should deserve an exploration, such as a heating of the universe from some pre-big bang state. In my own investigation, this revealed itself as a radiation vapour Helmholtz transition from some more primordial, non-interacting condensed gas/liquid of matter particles with very little thermodynamic degree of freedom. 

 

4) That physics should today, take seriously other models which permit alternatives to the inflation tragedy, since, prominent scientists, even those involved with its creation, now question its ultimate validity. 

 

5) That over all vacuum contribution of energy is effectively zero today. The only contribution from the vacuum in my own studies from the work of Sakharov  shows that perhaps was only significant when curvature was significant - this indicates vacuum contribution was different today than what it was when the universe was much younger. 

 

6) I am open to the idea of a ''god'' but I use this word as a way to express some ''vague ideology'' of a higher being. I don't use it in any religious sense. I am only open to this idea, for the same reason Susskind is. He is open about such subjects, and I welcome this kind of honesty. He believes that god is actually possible because physics and cosmology at large, gives the scientist situations in which nature appears to be finely tuned for some ultimate ''goal.'' In fact, this is not disputed, the only thing disputed is whether the goal was accidental or intentional. Since the fine tuning constants seem to indicate that it is not a random configuration of variables, something needs to give. 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on the subjects I have raised, you don't need to answer my own, but you can give your own interpretation of these problems if you wish.

[koti]

42 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

1) I do not believe the universe is random inherently at the quantum level or otherwise. 

 

2) I do not believe that the big bang is all there is in the universe. The misnomer ''hot big bang'' should really have been reserved for models that involve initial conditions with extremely high temperatures. The reason for this will be revealed now.

 

3) I do not believe the universe needs to be described by the current model. There are acceptable alternatives which should deserve an exploration, such as a heating of the universe from some pre-big bang state. In my own investigation, this revealed itself as a radiation vapour Helmholtz transition from some more primordial, non-interacting condensed gas/liquid of matter particles with very little thermodynamic degree of freedom. 

 

4) That physics should today, take seriously other models which permit alternatives to the inflation tragedy, since, prominent scientists, even those involved with its creation, now question its ultimate validity. 

 

5) That over all vacuum contribution of energy is effectively zero today. The only contribution from the vacuum in my own studies from the work of Sakharov  shows that perhaps was only significant when curvature was significant - this indicates vacuum contribution was different today than what it was when the universe was much younger. 

 

6) I am open to the idea of a ''god'' but I use this word as a way to express some ''vague ideology'' of a higher being. I don't use it in any religious sense. I am only open to this idea, for the same reason Susskind is. He is open about such subjects, and I welcome this kind of honesty. He believes that god is actually possible because physics and cosmology at large, gives the scientist situations in which nature appears to be finely tuned for some ultimate ''goal.'' In fact, this is not disputed, the only thing disputed is whether the goal was accidental or intentional. Since the fine tuning constants seem to indicate that it is not a random configuration of variables, something needs to give. 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on the subjects I have raised, you don't need to answer my own, but you can give your own interpretation of these problems if you wish.

#1
"Random" can be a subjective term here but I presume you write this in conjunction with your #6?
If yes, I'd have to disagree.

#6
"Ultimate goal" is a very human-centric term. If you work out at the gym you do it to feel better, loose weight, gain strength - you do it for some goal. We basically do everything to fulfill some goal, you buy food to eat it, you eat to survive, etc but does a Star have a goal? I don't think so, neither does any other non living part of nature has a goal in my opinion. Fine tuning becomes relevant only when looking from the human perspective, I'd lean towards stating that the very idea of fine tuning is irrelevant from Star's or electron's perspective.
(I gotta start working out again btw)

#2 & #3
One could go even further and speculate that a lot of what we see in physics could be approximations of something different just like Newtonian gravity becomes spacetime curvature in GR we could find that our perception of time is just an approximation of something different... our lack of correct understanding (of time for example) prevents us from grasping "pre" t=0 properly. I put pre in quotes as the concept of "pre" probably doesn't make any sense in the context of t=0.

#5
You mean Cosmological Constant? I would say that currently it probably is zero but it's fairly possible it wasn't always zero.

#4
There seems to be so many gaps and so many plausible approximations that I have to agree.
 

Edited November 29, 2017 by koti

[Dubbelosix]

No doesn't need to be in conjunction with number 6 because number 6 does not need to be so. 

 

I have no reason to think the universe is random, in fact, everything about nature points to deterministic, causal processes. If it did not abide by this, how does a causal universe like the observable one, arise?

 

 

[koti]

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

No doesn't need to be in conjunction with number 6 because number 6 does not need to be so. 

 

I have no reason to think the universe is random, in fact, everything about nature points to deterministic, causal processes. If it did not abide by this, how does a causal universe like the observable one, arise?

 

 

You assume that the universe understands what random, deterministic and causal is. Why?

[Dubbelosix]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

You assume that the universe understands what random, deterministic and causal is. Why?

 

The universe as we see it is causal. I base this as a matter of a set theory argument. A causal system cannot be borne from non-causal events. No more than any subsystem can contain enough information to encode the whole. The universe we see on a day-to-day basis appears to be constructed from causally set patterns in nature.

 

A wave function even at fundamental regions, shows that it is completely causally dynamic. The only thing our theory does not answer for, is how a wave function chooses a certain eigenstate. When we do not know why something happens, we tend to attach the ''random card'' to nature, when I do not find this acceptable physics. It's just lazy. 

Well, maybe and only maybe a system can be borne from non-causal events, but it is very unlikely. 

(edited for typo's)

Edited November 29, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

1) I do not believe the universe is random inherently at the quantum level or otherwise. 

So, do you disagree there is free will.. and everybody on this World (Universe?) are just slaves (robots?) doing what is ordered to them.. ??

 

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

The universe as we see it is causal. I base this as a matter of a set theory argument. A causal system cannot be borne from non-causal events (1). No more than any subsystem can contain enough information to encode the whole.(2) The universe we see on a day-to-day basis appears to be constructed from causally set patterns in nature.

 

Not entirely sure what you mean here.

1) How do these assertions play with the phenomenon of emergence?

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

[koti]

27 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

The universe as we see it is causal. I base this as a matter of a set theory argument. A causal system cannot be borne from non-causal events. No more than any subsystem can contain enough information to encode the whole. The universe we see on a day-to-day basis appears to be constructed from causally set patterns in nature.

 

I agree 100% (obviously) But taking into account that the concept of causality is inevitably rooted in the concept of time which is not that well understood or at least we don't know if time was always like this what we see now - this might not be so obvious. What we see is only ~14B light years each way, we have no idea what time looked like at t=0 and we're not sure if our universe is not just a pocket universe in some larger construct like a multiverse where causality works differently. Correct me if I'm wrong but even in the quantum foam in QM causality becomes fuzzy and weird.

 

Quote

A wave function even at fundamental regions, shows that it is completely causally dynamic. The only thing our theory does not answer for, is how a wave function chooses a certain eigenstate. When we do not know why something happens, we tend to attach the ''random card'' to nature, when I do not find this acceptable physics. It's just lazy. 

Well, maybe and only maybe a system can be borne from non-causal events, but it is very unlikely. 

(edited for typo's)

I'm far less knowledgeable on physics than you are but it seems very plausible to me that in order to dig into the physics of t=0 we will have to think far outside of the causality box. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by koti

[SuperPolymath]

QM was one big conspiracy

A cover-up for what Einstein was really getting at.

Said innovations would not be made, lest the working class got their hands on such technology

[Dubbelosix]

A recent investigation has shown that free will may not actually exist. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-all-be-an-illusion-scientists-suggest-after-study-that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Not entirely sure what you mean here.

1) How do these assertions play with the phenomenon of emergence?

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

emergence tends to mean, more than the sum of its parts, so your question does not mean much to me. To think though an n-number of particles acting randomly gives rise to macroscopic order, is uncertain, to non-probable with me. 

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Not entirely sure what you mean here.

1) How do these assertions play with the phenomenon of emergence?

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

If you have a universe consisting of randomly acting objects, would you expect order as we observe it on the macroscopic level arise? I don't expect it to, since such order requires its constituents act in a certain way. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[koti]

2 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

QM was one big conspiracy

A cover-up for what Einstein was really getting at.

Said innovations would not be made, lest the working class got their hands on such technology

LoL !

2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

A recent investigation has shown that free will may not actually exist. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-all-be-an-illusion-scientists-suggest-after-study-that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

Oh please I beg you no, lets not let this be another "free will" thread, there was too much of it recently. Can't we just stick to the cool stuff?
@Eise will come and fry your brain on the subject of free will anyway

[Dubbelosix]

Some one asked about free will and I gave an opinion - No need really to talk about it unless required. 

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

If you have a universe consisting of randomly acting objects, would you expect order as we observe it on the macroscopic level arise? I don't expect it to, since such order requires its constituents act in a certain way. 

 

Now I'm even more mystified as I can't make any connection to the points I made.?

 

I agree with Koti that random has different meanings to different people and would add that so does order

[Sensei]

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

A recent investigation has shown that free will may not actually exist.

Rubbish. Who would bother making Universe which would always look the same..

That would be extremely boring Universe..

Repeated over and over the same..

 

[Dubbelosix]

Random has one meaning as related to nature... that is, it is not controlled by any constraints dictating anything. Does this sound like the universe, you know?

 

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Rubbish. Who would bother making Universe which would always look the same..

That would be extremely boring Universe..

Repeated over and over the same..

 

maybe you've never heard of the bounce theories?

[studiot]

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

Random has one meaning as related to nature... that is, it is not controlled by any constraints dictating anything

Are you dictating or discussing?

 

[Dubbelosix]

You can correct me if you want. What other, coherent meaning of random can be attributed to reality as we know it?

[studiot]

 

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

You can correct me if you want. What other, coherent meaning of random can be attributed to reality as we know it?

The Kolmogorov definition?

 

What about my other points?

 

[Sensei]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

You can correct me if you want. What other, coherent meaning of random can be attributed to reality as we know it?

Tell me about random number generator errors of this Universe, and I will fix them..

So, you won't have to bother about them..

 

[koti]

12 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Some one asked about free will and I gave an opinion - No need really to talk about it unless required. 

No worries Dubbelosix.

[Dubbelosix]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Tell me about random number generator errors of this Universe, and I will fix them..

So, you won't have to bother about them..

 

What does a true random generator consist of?

 

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

2) How does this play with the fact you can put any interval of R in one-to-one correspondence with the whole of R?

 

 

 

 

This one studiot?

 

Well, show me what you mean. What random intervals have one-to-one correspondence? Does this not seem like an oxymoron?

[koti]

20 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Random has one meaning as related to nature... that is, it is not controlled by any constraints dictating anything. Does this sound like the universe, you know?

I don’t think that this is an exhaustive definition of „random” in relation to nature. For one, we don’t fully comprehend what nature is and we don’t know if the same rules were „always” applied to it and we can’t be absolutely sure the same rules apply everywhere right now. That aside, I don’t think that nature has any constraints like you imply, nothing is dictating anything - I don’t think the laws of physics which we know constraint our reality are automatically a mechanism which makes the universe non-random.

Edited November 30, 2017 by koti

[Dubbelosix]

Well I will ask for one, I am asking what is a random generator? Then I am asking, how a collection of randomly interacting systems could give rise to otherwise, causally interacting macroscopic systems to give rise, to the ordered, causal world around us. It just wouldn't happen this way. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[koti]

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Well I will ask for one, I am asking what is a random generator? Then I am asking, how a collection of randomly interacting systems could give rise to otherwise, causally interacting macroscopic systems to give rise, to the ordered, causal world around us. It just wouldn't happen this way. 

I think that your premise that the world around us is ordered is false. I don't see any order and the fact that cause & effect are in place does not make the reality non-random. 

[Dubbelosix]

Of course the world showing order is present. If it did not, the egg would not fall off a table, the ball would not roll down a hill, nor should ice always melt. No offence, but this stuff is simple. You either know what indeterminism actually means, or you crucially don't understand reality at large. 

which is it?