Archive for December, 2011

A Physics Theory is Required to do Three Things: describe, explain and predict (part 3)

Note to readers: Part 1 and part 2 are necessary prerequisites for understanding this article.

QGD Cosmology

Though quantum-geometry dynamics is a physics of fundamental reality, its axioms imply a number of predictions at the cosmological scale. If, as QGD proposes, space is discrete and emerges from the interactions between preons(-) and if the single fundamental component of matter is the preon(+), then the formation of all material structures, from particles to galaxies requires that the Universe evolved from an isotropic state where all preons(+) were free and uniformly distributed through the entire quantum-geometrical space of Universe. Before I move on, I would like to warn the reader that much of QGD contradicts the dominant theory of the origin and evolution of the Universe, but none of it, as far as I know, contradicts observations. In fact, not only does QGD cosmology not contradict observations that support the dominant theory, but it also accounts for observations that the dominant theory cannot explain and which constitutes strong counter-evidence against it. As we will see, QGD cosmology proposes that ours is a locally condensing universe rather than an expanding universe. A locally condensing universe, as defined below, is nearly undistinguishable from an expanding universe. From an observer’s point of view, the galaxies of both types of universe will appear to recede from each other at an accelerated rate. But QGD not only agrees with all observations that support the Big Bang theory, it also agrees with the observations of redshift anomalies, which is strong counter-evidence against the Big Bang theory. QGD not only describes and explains, but predicts the conditions that will produce redshift anomalies.

The Material and Spatial Dimensions of the Universe

When we think of the Universe, we think of what we observe through telescopes. We think of planets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters; the material structures of the Universe. When we study the Universe, we do so by observing the material structures, but not the entire Universe is observable. We can only observe what is made of matter because only matter can interact with the instruments we use for observation. Yet the Universe is made of more than structures of matter; it is also made of space. And if QGD is correct, that space is quantum-geometrical. Virtually all of physics considers space to be an amorphous expanse in which physical systems exist and interact. As a consequence all physics theories are theories of matter (or matter and energy to be precise). Quantum-geometry dynamics too is a theory of matter, but it is also a theory of space. Also, according to QGD, not only is space quantum-geometrical and emergent, it also determines the very structure of matter.

Conservation of Space

QGD proposes that it be the repulsive force of n-gravity acting between preons(-) that generates space (n-gravity being the fundamental force intrinsic to preons(-)). Since preons(-) are fundamental particles, they obey the law of conservation which states that nothing fundamental can be created or destroyed. It follows that there must be a finite number of preons(-), which in turn implies that there is a finite number of interactions, thus a finite amount of quantum-geometrical space. Therefore, as large as it appears to be, space must be finite.

Particle Formation and Strict Causality

QGD follows the principle of strict causality, which is short for saying that the formation of any non-fundamental physical object requires the pre-existence of its constituents. Fundamental objects, being fundamental, pre-exist everything else (post-exist everything else as well). The strict causality implies that any structure requires the pre-existence of its components may appear trivial, but it is a principle that some theories feel is fine to violate. Other theories, such as string theory, can’t tell which particles may be components of which other particles (see Leonard Susskind’s lectures of reductionism
). As a result, theories that violate strict causality may ambiguously indicate that reality can get more complex the closer we approach the fundamental scale. There is no such ambiguity in quantum-geometry dynamics. Strict causality implies that reality get simpler at the fundamental scale. QGD predicts the existence of only two fundamental particles and two fundamental forces. Reality can’t get any simpler. QGD shows that all laws of physics can be derived from a simple of set of axioms which is complete and consistent. This, of course, contradicts Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. But if the Universe is made of a finite set of fundamental particles which combine in accordance to a finite set of fundamental laws to produce physical reality, then it follows that Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem is, at least in its present form, wrong. Also, if you believe that the fundamental components and laws are a consistent and that the Universe is a coherent system, then Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem must also be wrong. It follows the Universe is found to be complete and consistent system, then Gödel must be revised and Hilbert’s program must be reinstated. An acquaintance once commented that we should make a distinction between a mathematical demonstration and a physical demonstration. My take on the question is that it makes no difference. If the Universe is found to be both coherent and complete (that is, fundamental particles and the laws that govern them are consistent and all that they produce remains part of the Universe (completeness), then all physical processes are emergent from the axiomatic set of fundamental particles and laws. Now, that means that not only are the basic physical interactions emergent, but all processes, including environmental, social, cultural and neurological processes emerge from the fundamental axiomatic set. One can argue that, as abstract mathematics may be from reality, they are the result of mental processes, which are necessarily physical so that they, themselves, can be derived from the fundamental laws of physics. In that context, it doesn’t matter what the construct is (a painting, a film, a poem or a mathematical theory), it must be emergent and can theoretically be derived from the fundamental axiomatic set.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Quantum-geometry dynamics describes the initial state of the Universe as being one in which preons(+) were free and distributed uniformly throughout the quantum-geometrical space. Following this initial state, the simple structures we call photons started to form. The formation of photons happened throughout the Universe uniformly and resulted in the cosmic microwave background. The density of the preonic field being greater than it is now, the photons produced were more massive (see mass/energy equation in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics). Most preons(+) are still free today and still form photons (though at the lower rate). The collective gravitational effect of those free preons(+) have been observed and correspond to what has been called dark matter.

Small Structure Formation

The strict causality principle, which requires the pre-existence of a structure’s components, implies that photons combined to form the electrons, positrons and neutrinos. In fact, the well-known electron-positron annihilation is simply the reverse of the mechanism of particle formation. This is explained in the book.

Large Structures

The formation of large structures also follows the principle of strict causality. It implies the formation of larger particles, then nuclides (the components of the atomic nucleus) then light atoms. These eventually formed stars and galaxies. The formation of increasingly massive structures (elements) continued in stars where the gravitational interactions are sufficient fusion of elements. It has also been observed that particles, nuclides in particular, have certain sizes. The lower and higher boundaries on the size of any particle determine the island of stability. The mechanisms which limit the size of a particle are explained in chapter titled Nucleus Size and Formation of the book. This chapter explains the notion of equilibrium and how only particles that are within the range of equilibrium are stable and why particles that are lighter or heavier will decay.

Locally Condensing Universe

This is one the most distinctive aspect of the QGD cosmology. If follows from the axioms of QGD that the size of the Universe, defined as the space emerging from the interactions between preons(-) is constant, but within that space massive structures will gradually collapse towards their center. To the observer, a locally condensing universe is nearly indistinguishable from an expanding universe. For instance, the distance between galaxies progressively increases in both locally condensing universe (LCU) and expanding universe (EU). And in both the rates at which the galaxies retract from each other increases, which indicates that galaxies retract at accelerated rate in both the LCU and EU. So if both LCU and EU are nearly indistinguishable to the observer, how do we know which is correct? Is there any evidence which would support LCU? The observational evidence exists and has been known from some time as redshift anomalies. The redshift is simply the shift of the frequency of light coming from a moving source (which is understood to be analogous to the Doppler Effect for sound). The faster the relative speed of the source of light away from the Earth, the greater the redshift of the light coming from that source. The magnitude of the redshift is used to calculate the distance between galaxies and the rate at which they recede from each other. Hence it is used to infer the expansion of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, which is the dominant theory of the expanding universe, the further away galaxies are, the faster they will recede from us. This implies that neighboring cosmic structures (galaxies, quasars, etc.) would recede from us at the same rate, thus have the same redshift. This is generally true, but there are an increasing number of observations that show neighboring cosmic structures having significant differences in their redshifts. This would indicate that the rate at which they recede from us differs by many orders of magnitude. Redshift anomalies (and there are now thousands of them) are in direct opposition with the Big Bang and other expanding universe theories. Yet, redshift anomalies support the idea of a locally condensing universe. Not only do redshift anomalies support QGD cosmology, they are predicted by QCD cosmology. Redshift, according to QGD, is not a measure of the rate at which they galaxies recede, but the rate at which they collapse (which itself is a function of the density of the galaxy or cosmic structure). The acceleration of the rate at which galaxies recede is also consistent with rate at which they would collapse under the gravitational effect described by QGD. The rate of collapse of cosmic structures obeys the QGD law of gravitation which is described by the equation found in chapter 8 of my book. As such it is affected by their mass and density, but also by the gravitational interactions between them. Using the QGD gravitational interaction equation, the rate of collapse between galaxies will be affected by dark energy or dark matter effects depending on the distance between them. The dark energy and dark matter effect will also determine the shapes of the interacting galaxies. Given certain distance exceeding a certain a value (see part 1 and part 2), n-gravity will be dominant (the dark energy effect) resulting in a flattening of the galaxies along the axis that connects them. While at distances lower than the equilibrium point, p-gravity becomes dominant (the dark matter effect) and the shape galaxies will expand along the axis connecting them. The same principle explains why the material universe (that part of the universe where matter is concentrated) is nearly flat (something that the Big Bang and EU theories can’t explain). Thus the universe should become flatter as it evolves.

Universe as a Finite and Closed Structure

We mentioned earlier that the quantum-geometrical space must be finite. If QGD is correct, it must also be closed. That is, a photon going in a straight trajectory would eventually go forth to its point of origin, whichever point we arbitrarily chose as origin. So though the Universe may be finite, there would be no edge to it.

Summary of QGD Cosmology Predictions

  • The Universe evolved from an isotropic state. This eliminates all problems associated with singularities.
  • The Universe is a finite and closed system. This eliminates all problems associated with infinities.
  • The Universe in strictly causal

Consequences for Particle Physics

Particle accelerators, such as CERN’s large hadron collider, are extraordinary tools that attempt to recreate on a microscopic scale the conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the Universe. The hope is that by recreating the conditions immediately following the Big Bang will reveal the fundamental particles and states that existed at the very beginning of the Universe. This is a valid approach if the Big Bang theory’s assumption that the Universe evolved from a singularity is correct. But what if, as QGD suggest, the Universe evolved from an isotropic state? If such is the case, then the conditions recreated in particle colliders are not those that prevailed at the beginning of the Universe, but conditions we could expect to be found much later and only in dense preonic structures such as those existing prior to the formation of starts. Thus, particles colliders do not reveal fundamental reality, but an emergent reality. In other words, trying to discover fundamental reality using particle accelerator is like looking at the wrong end of microscope to reveal the microcosm or at the wrong end of a telescope to observe the macrocosm. That is not to say that such instruments as the LHC are useless. On the contrary, such instruments are essential to our understanding of reality. It’s only that what they show us is not fundamental reality, but processes that came into existence at states that followed the initial isotropic state of the Universe.

A Friendly Wager about Superluminal Neutrinos

Or How Our Two Cents May Be Worth 10,000 Times More

Suggested prior reading: Why Can’t Anything Move Faster Than Light?

I’ve been following the well written and often thought provoking blog of Johannes Koelman. One of his articles titled Einstein On Steroids: Dirac, The Higgs, And Speeding Neutrinos in which he discusses some of possible implications of the OPERA results (which appear to show that neutrinos can violate the speed of light limit imposed by special relativity) caught my attention.

In his interesting and entertaining article (which you should definitely read if only as an example of the sociology of science), Johannes suggests that no theoretical physicists would bet in favor of the confirmation of the OPERA results while there would be plenty of them that would bet against it (the results are overwhelmingly dismissed as being an experimental error).

Now, having predicted the possibility of relative superluminal particles (absolute speed cannot exceed the speed of light), specifically that relative superluminal photons and neutrinos. Both particles share some characteristics which allows them to move at relative speed in excess of c but with actual intrinsic speed equal to c. I confidently responded that I would take the bet.

As readers of this blog (see here and here) and Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics know, I believe that the speed in excess of the speed of light corresponds to speed of the Earth relative to the quantum-geometrical background along the axis connecting CERN to Gran Sasso.

I was pleasantly surprised that, like me, Johannes was willing to put his money where his “blogging mouth” is. So after exchanging a few email we agreed to the terms of a bet. You can read them on his blog appropriately titled Putting My Money Were My Mouth Is.

Of course, neither of us are doing this for the money (though $200 can buy an outing in a pretty decent restaurant and I love restaurants), but mainly as a way to stimulate discussions and awareness of the very fundamental question the OPERA group poses to physics.

I think this could be a lot of fun.
