[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Many believe that the deep question of "why is there something rather than
nothing?" is unanswerable. The universe just is and no further explanation for
its existence is possible. In this paper I explain why this question must have
an answer, and why that answer must establish that physical existence is
inescapable and necessary. Based on the conclusion that if the universe is
eternal rather than having a beginning some finite time in the past, the
universe has to exist rather than not because its possible non-existence is
never an option, such an explanation is put forward. As a logical extension of
only an eternal universe being capable of providing an answer to the question
of why there is something rather than nothing, the argument necessitates that
the universe must be eternal. The consequences of this conclusion for cosmology
are then briefly discussed.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Based on the conjecture that rather than the second law of thermodynamics inevitably be breached as matter approaches a big crunch or a black hole singularity, the order of events should reverse, a model of the universe that resolves a number of longstanding problems and paradoxes in cosmology is presented. A universe that has no beginning (and no need for one), no ending, but yet is finite, is without singularities, precludes time travel, in which events are neither determined by initial or final conditions, and problems such as why the universe has a low entropy past, or conditions at the big bang appear to be so "special," require no causal explanation, is the result. This model also has some profound philosophical implications.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis.
Foundations of Physics Letters 11/2003; DOI:10.1023/A:1025361725408
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Zeno of Elea's motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, are stated (1), commented on (2), and their historical proposed solutions then discussed (3). Their correct solution, based on recent conclusions in physics associated with time and classical and quantum mechanics, and in particular, of there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time (including relative position), for their continuity through time, is then explained (4). This article follows on from another, more physics orientated and widely encompassing paper entitled "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity" (Lynds, 2003), with its intention being to detail the correct solution to Zeno's paradoxes more fully by presently focusing on them alone. If any difficulties are encountered in understanding any aspects of the physics underpinning the following contents, it is suggested that readers refer to the original paper for a more in depth coverage.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The conclusion of physics, within both a historical and more recent context, that an objectively progressive time and present moment are derivative notions without actual physical foundation in nature, illustrate that these perceived chronological features originate from subjective conscious experience and the neurobiological processes underlying it. Using this conclusion as a stepping stone, it is posited that the phenomena of an in-built subjective conception of a progressive present moment in time and that of conscious awareness are actually one and the same thing, and as such, are also the outcome of the same neurobiological processes. A possible explanation as to how this might be achieved by the brain through employing the neuronal induced nonconscious cognitive manipulation of a small interval of time is proposed. The CIP phenomenon, elucidated within the context of this study is also then discussed.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: An earlier cosmology paper, "On a finite universe with no beginning or end" [arXiv:physics/0612053], is introduced, and some supplementary detail concerning gravitational singularities, the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, the Schwarzschild metric, and the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems then provided. Without appealing to Brane cosmology and non-generic mechanisms in differing approaches to quantum gravity, singularities are avoided in all cases.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: I argue that what is ultimately possible in physics will ultimately depend on the willingness and ability of individual physicists to seriously concern themselves with the question of whether a theory's physical foundations and assumptions actually correspond to Nature or not. Several examples in modern physics related to the topics of time and space-time are discussed where I feel this issue to be especially pertinent, including the existence of space-time, the theory of cosmic inflation, the standard interpretation of the "block" view of time provided by relativity, the theory that time and space are quantized, and thermodynamic time reversal. I conclude with some comments about Albert Einstein, a physicist I believe physics can today still learn much from, not just for his theories and ideas, but also from his approach to physics. What is ultimately possible in physics depends on the future emphasis of physics on foundations and philosophy. Perhaps not the most popular statement one could make, and given that I believe philosophers give philosophy a bad name, it is an unpopularity I can sympathise with. Nevertheless, it is a statement I believe to be true. Not philosophy in the sense of earnest academics inventing new 'isms' and 'ists', saying something in 10 pages that could be said in a single sentence, or pontificating endlessly about the whys and wherefores of a question but never actually addressing it, but philosophy in its real, wider sense; put very broadly, the investigation of the nature of reality. It would seem obvious that investigating the nature of physical reality, and trying to correctly assert what physically is and isn't, would be the main goal of physics. With the likes of Michael Faraday, Ludwig Boltzmann, Ernst Mach, Erwin Schrödinger, and Albert Einstein—all heavyweights of physics with a strongly philosophical approach to science, being deeply concerned with the foundations, assumptions, and logical and ontological underpinnings of physical theory—it seems that until midway through the 20th century, it largely was. Since this time, however, this has tended to be less and less the case. Following on from logical positivism and then Karl Popper, physical theories are often claimed to not have truth-values (in the sense of being definitely right of wrong), and science not to be a question of whether a theory correctly corresponds to Nature or not. Essentially, as long as a theory makes predictions that can falsified empirically, and ideally, those predictions match the results of observation and experiment, this is all that matters. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.