Riddle of the Universe Solved - Universe Evolved

[markcgreer]

Revolutionary New Theory Suggests the Laws of Physics Evolved

 

GRAND HAVEN, Mich. Mar 07, 2012

 

Mark Greer, astrophysics ponderer, suggests a revolutionary new theory that the laws of physics may have evolved over time. Assuming the earliest universe was completely dark and void of everything, and that mathematically represented a perfect zero, Greer asks, “how did we go from zero to where we are today?”

 

Greer believes the reason there is something, instead of nothing, is because of imperfection. “This is not a new concept”, he says. “Fluctuations from 0 into +1 and -1 or any other set of balanced equations make it perfectly plausible for something to come from nothing. This is what is happening constantly in the quantum world.

 

According to Greer’s theory, if the law of imperfection that brought them into the universe applies as they collide and exit the universe, they cancel each other back out to zero, but not perfectly. What’s left is a minute trace of unresolved force. This remaining imbalance may be the simplest form of “pre-energy” and the basic building block of the universe. It may be the “string” of string theory.

 

Unresolved imbalances are intangible and invisible, yet could plausibly make up everything in our universe. We think of the universe as being made up of particles or substance. But what if, in reality, everything is made up of this invisible, intangible, unresolved force? Imagine instead that it is a will or intent, and not a thing,” says Greer.

 

This new theory suggests that while the quantum world void of the laws of physics, the newly created unresolved forces are also void of physical laws. They are the bit before they organize into a byte. Physicists have been trying to find a connection between the world of the large and the world of the small without success, and this may be why. According to the theory, this raw form of energy enters the world without having any uniform laws of physics.

 

As the quantum world produces these leftover forces, they randomly combine into a vast variety of configurations. “Think of this as the primordial soup before the rise of our cosmos,” adds Greer. “Some combinations attract, some repel, some explode, some cancel back out into nothing to name a few of the possibilities. Those that attract, they do so in varying degrees. If we simulate an explosion among particles of varying gravity, you should see the particles that attract too strongly collapse back into the center; Particles that attract too lightly fly off into space; Only the ones with just the right level of attraction successfully remain, orbiting each other in balance. Repeat this cycle over and over and the amount of particles that attract precisely grows as sort of a natural selection process. This is how gravity as we know it might have evolved.

 

“Astrophysicists have always struggled to connect Gravity to the other three fundamental forces of our universe: the strong and weak nuclear force, and magnetic force,” says Greer. “But if this theory is correct, we shouldn’t expect them to connect. Let’s assume gravity was one of nearly infinite forces that appeared, but only one of four that successfully survived the evolutionary process. If this is the case, the complexity of the different types of perfectly balanced particles and energy, that survived to this point is amazing. Today, the laws of physics are still free to spawn new forces. Though given the amount of time it took to evolve to this point, I’d say we may already be in a state of near perfection.

 

Could the theory explain why we see dark energy and dark matter effects on our universe today? Quantum activity is constantly creating new building blocks of which combine and repel at varying levels causing the effect of dark energy. In the same way, quantum building blocks are creating combinations that attract at varying levels to create the extra gravity that prevents galaxies from flying apart. Just as bacteria still exists as evidence of some of the first life on Earth, quantum activity is evidence of the first primitive energy in the universe.

 

The fact that we have not found the elusive Higgs bosons and gravitons could also be explained by the new theory. This is because the laws of physics are innate in the matter and energy around us. Greer explains, “Imagine we are living among particles that all pull at the same strength giving the illusion that these forces exist outside of matter, when in reality they are all coming from within the matter and energy around us. That would mean all of the highly evolved matter and energy of our universe today represents the survival of the fittest - the extreme cream of the crop of all possible mathematical configurations that could be created from these building blocks. If this is true, perhaps one day we can harness these building blocks and configure them in a way that enables us to do things like travel faster than the speed of light.”

 

What’s more, the theory predicts the universe should forever grow larger and larger. In other words, from the edge of our universe, we would see more stars, galaxies and big bangs. “I believe big bangs may be tied to the explosion/inflation of a black hole. Inflation could be triggered by a tipping point, as stars have”, Greer speculates. “Black hole big bangs could be as common in the multiverse as exploding stars are in our universe.”

 

“We may be living in an open universe with no boundaries dating back well beyond the 13.7 billion years we know of,” says Greer. “I believe that just as an exploding star creates the materials for a new star to be born, our big bang is creating opportunities for more black hole big bangs. The universe may not fade away into nothing after all. It may continue to grow like a living virus.”

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What experimentally testable predictions does this theory make?

[markcgreer]

As a start, we would need to computer simulate a large number of particles at varying levels of attraction and repulsion including those that have the perfect level of gravity, then put the through simulated explosions and other events to see how they interact and if this draws out the particles of perfect level of gravity. Try to simulate cycles.

 

Dark matter should both seem unresponsive and highly attractive.

 

I only came up with this general idea Monday, so it needs a bit of work, but I wanted to put it out there.

[kisai]

According to the theory, this raw form of energy enters the world without having

any uniform laws of physics.

 

 

Isn't this a violation of the conversation of energy?

 

 

Why haven't we observed energy leaving the universe without explanation?

[Ben Banana]

I only came up with this general idea Monday, so it needs a bit of work, but I wanted to put it out there.

Thats neat.

 

Why are you writing about your ideas in 3rd person?

[markcgreer]

Thats neat.

 

Why are you writing about your ideas in 3rd person?

 

That's just standard press release format so that it can be published on various news sites.

 

Isn't this a violation of the conversation of energy?

 

 

Why haven't we observed energy leaving the universe without explanation?

 

The big bang was 99.9999999999% energy leaving the universe represented as a matter-antimatter cancelling out..

[Phi for All]

That's just standard press release format so that it can be published on various news sites.

 

 

 

The big bang was 99.9999999999% energy leaving the universe represented as a matter-antimatter cancelling out..

Coming on the heels of the Brian Cox misconceptions, aren't you a bit worried about launching press releases about your two-day old hypothesis (a theory is much more heavily tested and peer-reviewed)?

[markcgreer]

Coming on the heels of the Brian Cox misconceptions, aren't you a bit worried about launching press releases about your two-day old hypothesis (a theory is much more heavily tested and peer-reviewed)?

 

Its just a general concept that has plenty of potential to be wrong - like a lot of other speculations in science news. The purpose of it is to help us generate new ideas and look at the universe from another perspective.

[The Observer]

Why are you writing the press release and not you know, the press?

[zapatos]

Why are you writing the press release and not you know, the press?

The press does not write press releases. Press releases are, you know, released to the press.

 

A press release, news release, media release, press statement or video release is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something ostensibly newsworthy. Typically, they are mailed, faxed, or e-mailed to assignment editors at newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, and/or television networks.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_release

Edited March 8, 2012 by zapatos

[markcgreer]

Why are you writing the press release and not you know, the press?

 

Because in the field of PR, that's how it works, the company or entity writes up the press release and then submits it to a business wire service and then the actual press has the option to "pick it up". If they pick it up, they either publish the release as is, or they customize the article, or contact the placer for a further interview. The company either has their own PR employee, or they hire a PR firm to submit it for the press.

Edited March 8, 2012 by markcgreer

[JustinW]

Instead of directing this conversation away from the subject by discussing press releases and style of writing, why don't we actually discuss the plausibility of the thesis?

 

As the quantum world produces these leftover forces, they randomly combine into a vast variety of configurations. “Think of this as the primordial soup before the rise of our cosmos,” adds Greer. “Some combinations attract, some repel, some explode, some cancel back out into nothing to name a few of the possibilities. Those that attract, they do so in varying degrees. If we simulate an explosion among particles of varying gravity, you should see the particles that attract too strongly collapse back into the center; Particles that attract too lightly fly off into space; Only the ones with just the right level of attraction successfully remain, orbiting each other in balance. Repeat this cycle over and over and the amount of particles that attract precisely grows as sort of a natural selection process. This is how gravity as we know it might have evolved.

You say those that attract do so in varying degrees, but wouldn't the same apply to those that repell also? And in this thesis, what implications would that have on the outcome of the particles with little repulsive force? It seems that there would be a window of those that remain, not just a cut and dry "stay or go" scenario.

 

Also you mention that one should see particles that attract too strongly collapse back in the center. The center of what? The center point between them?

 

And, if gravity is in the form of particles... why would they automatically only apply to things with mass? And apply their strength according to density?

 

What’s more, the theory predicts the universe should forever grow larger and larger. In other words, from the edge of our universe, we would see more stars, galaxies and big bangs. “I believe big bangs may be tied to the explosion/inflation of a black hole. Inflation could be triggered by a tipping point, as stars have”, Greer speculates. “Black hole big bangs could be as common in the multiverse as exploding stars are in our universe.”

 

What would cause a blackhole to explode or inflate? Did they encounter something they couldn't swallow (so to speak)? In the notion that the hadron collider can produce tiny blackholes, it is assumed that when having more material than it can consume, it would wink out of existance. (purely speculative and recently debunked) But on the other hand, Hawking had suggested that a black hole will eventually decay into nothing, for two simple reasons. First, a black hole wil not consume any material that is not caught in it's event horizon. Second, all black holes emit radiation, so eventually will shrink due to only having a certain amount of mass and energy to consume. And in fact the smaller they get, the faster they will shrink.

[zapatos]

Instead of directing this conversation away from the subject by discussing press releases and style of writing, why don't we actually discuss the plausibility of the thesis?

 

Please, don't let me stop you. I know that you have never submitted a post that wasn't spot on topic to the OP. And if the originator of this thread is willing to address the question, why should it be a problem with you?

[JustinW]

Please, don't let me stop you. I know that you have never submitted a post that wasn't spot on topic to the OP. And if the originator of this thread is willing to address the question, why should it be a problem with you?

Because I see this too often and don't think it is detrimental to an enlightening and knowledgeable conversation. I will be the first to admitt that I have done this also when in a cheeky mood, but have recently come to the conclusion that it is not condusive to good behavior.

 

The fact of the matter is that if we had more conversations about the merrit of the text rather than the context we might gain more from it.

Plus I had some actual question dealing with the merrit of the thesis.

 

And I don't think you could stop me if you tried. I'm rather stubborn.

[markcgreer]

You say those that attract do so in varying degrees, but wouldn't the same apply to those that repell also? And in this thesis, what implications would that have on the outcome of the particles with little repulsive force? It seems that there would be a window of those that remain, not just a cut and dry "stay or go" scenario.

 

Also you mention that one should see particles that attract too strongly collapse back in the center. The center of what? The center point between them?

 

And, if gravity is in the form of particles... why would they automatically only apply to things with mass? And apply their strength according to density?

 

What would cause a blackhole to explode or inflate? Did they encounter something they couldn't swallow (so to speak)? In the notion that the hadron collider can produce tiny blackholes, it is assumed that when having more material than it can consume, it would wink out of existance. (purely speculative and recently debunked) But on the other hand, Hawking had suggested that a black hole will eventually decay into nothing, for two simple reasons. First, a black hole wil not consume any material that is not caught in it's event horizon. Second, all black holes emit radiation, so eventually will shrink due to only having a certain amount of mass and energy to consume. And in fact the smaller they get, the faster they will shrink.

 

 

Justin, Yes, they repel of course in varying degrees. You should also see complexity in the way they repel such as a particle being able to both attract with the strong nuclear force and repel gravitationally. Any combination that is possible would likely exist at some point. You are definitely correct that much of the matter that does not fit the perfect balance scenario would get stuck with it. Sounds like Dark Matter, yes? And for those that repel: Dark Energy?

 

They should collapse back into the center of the explosion. If our big bang occurred with a mix of varying gravity, these high gravity particles would get absorbed right back into the center.

 

You can't think of mass the same way anymore. Everything in the universe is made of energy. And energy in its most simple and primitive form is an imbalance. So how many different ways can you mold the force of imbalance?

 

Regarding black holes: Stars radiate but they end in explosion as well. There is no evidence that black holes do not explode. This theory needs a massive explosion that repeats and the most logical culprit seems to be the black hole. I have no idea what would cause it to explode, but we should look there.

[zapatos]

Because I see this too often and don't think it is detrimental to an enlightening and knowledgeable conversation. I will be the first to admitt that I have done this also when in a cheeky mood, but have recently come to the conclusion that it is not condusive to good behavior.

Wow. That is quite a set of cojones on you!

 

Thanks anyway but we already have mothers, and the staff of SFN will keep order.

 

Unbelievable.

Edited March 9, 2012 by zapatos

[JustinW]

mark,

They should collapse back into the center of the explosion. If our big bang occurred with a mix of varying gravity, these high gravity particles would get absorbed right back into the center.

What explosion are we talking about here? The explosion of themselves? If so, then where did they go? If such can occur, those particles would have to be accounted for somehow.

 

 

You are definitely correct that much of the matter that does not fit the perfect balance scenario would get stuck with it. Sounds like Dark Matter, yes? And for those that repel: Dark Energy?

Maybe. It would help if there were some observable experiment to support the idea.

 

 

Regarding black holes: Stars radiate but they end in explosion as well. There is no evidence that black holes do not explode. This theory needs a massive explosion that repeats and the most logical culprit seems to be the black hole. I have no idea what would cause it to explode, but we should look there.

As far as I've read so far the characteristics are as I stated above, though I can agree that there is still alot of unknowns.

 

 

Also, we know that gravity creates lensing. Wouldn't a repelant form of gravity also offer a form of gravitational lensing?

[markcgreer]

I love science, but I am getting the feeling that scientist culture is one that punishes you for thinking outside the box. I come from the entrepreneurial world where the life and death of a business is based on several non-obvious forces.

 

Get your head out of your highly detailed experiment and stop and look at the universe as a whole - the big picture. Its too perfect for it to be a spontaneous accident!!! We should absolutely be speculating more! We should absolutely be dreaming up ideas from the top and seeing if the world fits the idea. Scientists are always working backward from the evidence. We could get a lot further if we imagined scenarios from the top and then tested to see if they could've worked.

 

Why does the standard model only have 20 particles?? Why isn't there an infinite array?? Because they had to pass some sort of test to exist. They had to go through a weeding out process. Let's run a simulation of particles with varying gravity and see if this weeds out the imperfect levels.

 

Here's another clue the universe evolved: Why is there far more dark energy than dark matter? Answer: Because our 5% of visible matter is dark matter than has evolved. Dark matter is a primitive form of matter. Dark energy will never evolve into anything because it repels instead of attracts. Someone needs to bitch slap the science world. Wake up and make some bold predictions!!!!

[Arete]

I love science, but I am getting the feeling that scientist culture is one that punishes you for thinking outside the box.

 

Emergent scientific fields generally start off with broad hypotheses that don't really have a "box". Asgeneral hypotheses are verified or rejected, "the box" of parameter space in which the answer lies slowly becomes apparent. Further hypothesis testing and experimentation leads to a shrinking of the dimensions of the "box" on the parameter space in which the answer is most likely to be.

 

Often when the well meaning layperson presents an 'out of the box" hypothesis, they are presenting a hypothetical which lies in a region of parameter space which as been rejected by previous investigation - often due to the natural lack of knowledge that comes from not having spent a full time career investigating the problem at hand. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it happens to me all the time, only I consider it flattering to have independently come up with concepts predecessors I would consider mentors and role models did too, but then proved to be false.

 

The trap that many people not classically trained in the sciences fall into is turning a hypothesis into a pet hypothesis. They then take the robust criticism and evaluation of a hypothesis which part of the normal evaluation of science as a personal affront and subsequent rejection of those hypotheses found to be wanting as personal rejection and offense from the establishment. I'd hate for you to fall into that trap.

 

While evolutionary biology is my field and I'm not here to critique your theory, be aware of the miniscule chance that an "out of the box" proposal has not already been considered and turned out to be wrong, nor take offense if it is robustly critiqued. It's part of the process and happens to all of us

Edited March 11, 2012 by Arete

[uncool]

Someone needs to bitch slap the science world. Wake up and make some bold predictions!!!!

I'd advise you to take your own advice and answer Cap'n's question.

 

What experimentally testable predictions does this theory make?

=Uncool-

[Klaynos]

Emergent scientific fields generally start off with broad hypotheses that don't really have a "box". Asgeneral hypotheses are verified or rejected, "the box" of parameter space in which the answer lies slowly becomes apparent. Further hypothesis testing and experimentation leads to a shrinking of the dimensions of the "box" on the parameter space in which the answer is most likely to be.

 

Often when the well meaning layperson presents an 'out of the box" hypothesis, they are presenting a hypothetical which lies in a region of parameter space which as been rejected by previous investigation - often due to the natural lack of knowledge that comes from not having spent a full time career investigating the problem at hand. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it happens to me all the time, only I consider it flattering to have independently come up with concepts predecessors I would consider mentors and role models did too, but then proved to be false.

 

The trap that many people not classically trained in the sciences fall into is turning a hypothesis into a pet hypothesis. They then take the robust criticism and evaluation of a hypothesis which part of the normal evaluation of science as a personal affront and subsequent rejection of those hypotheses found to be wanting as personal rejection and offense from the establishment. I'd hate for you to fall into that trap.

 

While evolutionary biology is my field and I'm not here to critique your theory, be aware of the miniscule chance that an "out of the box" proposal has not already been considered and turned out to be wrong, nor take offense if it is robustly critiqued. It's part of the process and happens to all of us

 

This post is one that the OP really should read, re-read and try to get to terms with.