Discover the world's scientific knowledge

Is it possible to hypothesize the existence of a universe governed by supersymmetric natural laws that existed before the Big Bang (Garden of Eden)? Is it possible to believe that the Big Bang occurred due to the breaking of this pre-existing supersymmetry (a consequence of original sin)? It is possible that man (Adam and Eve) was present in the primordial universe (Garden of Eden) before the Big Bang, and that he reappeared on earth at the end of a long evolutionary process ,after the formation of the solar system in the current universe, born from the Big Bang (concordance between sacred scriptures and Darwinian evolution theory, meaning of the Divine commandment "Grow and multiply")? My answer "IS YES". In answering this question, the titles of the last chapters of a book by a famous Italian epistemologist (L. Geymonat) come to mind: "Science and Reality, Science and Truth, Science and Conception of the World".

Putnam critisized logical positivists acounts of the meaning of scientific terms and nature of scientific theories because they were incompatible with minimal scientific realism. However, before discounting antirealism as valud stance he leaned toward it in his internal realist years, the view that epistemic version of truth is the most valid.

I recall a fascinating lecture given by Professor Enrico Bellone. In a letter dated May 7th, 1952, addressed to his friend Maurice Solovine, Einstein shared a drawing that summarized his ideas on the subject: "What is science ?". The drawing features a horizontal line labeled E, which represents immediate experiences or the empirical basis, and a vertical line labeled A, which represents the axioms underlying theories. Einstein argued that there is no logical process that allows us to derive axioms from experiences; instead, it requires an intuitive, extralogical, and psychological leap. Once we have intuited the axioms, we can deduce special statements S1, S2... by assuming their truthfulness and then comparing them with experience. According to Einstein, the crucial level lies in the axioms, and therefore there is no distinction between science and philosophy, but rather a single set of concepts. He also maintained that the theoretical principles of scientific theories are fictional, and any attempt to deduce ideas and laws from elementary experiences is doomed to fail. So, what is science according to Albert Einstein? Einstein believed that all the games are played at the top of the drawing, where we jump from one idea to another, from one theory to another, and where we model nature because we have categories of ideas that are fairly standard. In this context, Einstein praised the great philosophers he admired.

To measure the lifetime of a proton, scientists essentially build large, sensitive detectors that monitor a huge number of protons over long periods of time, looking for any signs of decay, as no proton decay has ever been directly observed; the current method is to set a lower limit on the proton lifetime by observing a large sample of protons and recording any potential decay events, with the absence of observed decays indicating an extremely long lifetime.No direct observation of decay:As per the Standard Model, protons are considered stable particles, meaning they don't decay on their own, so experiments focus on setting a lower limit on their potential lifetime by looking for decay events that might occur according to some theoretical models (like Grand Unified Theories - GUTs).

Large-scale detectors:Experiments typically involve massive tanks filled with a medium like water, with highly sensitive detectors placed around to capture any potential decay products (like photons) from a proton decay event.Underground location:To minimize interference from cosmic rays, these experiments are usually located deep underground.Statistical analysis:By monitoring a large number of protons over extended periods, scientists can calculate a lower limit on the proton lifetime based on the probability of observing even a single decay event if the decay rate was higher.

Challenges in measuring proton lifetime:Extremely long lifetime:The predicted proton lifetime based on current theories is extemely long, potentially in the range of 10^30 to 10^36 years, making it very difficult to bserve even a single decay event within a reasonable experimental timeframe.Background noise:Distinguishing a genuine proton decay signal from background noise created by other particles interacting within the detector is a significant challenge. If the proton's life time exceeds 10^34 years it must have existed before the current universe was formed. If so where was it located, in another Universe. That makes Multiverse closer the truth than the Bigband is!??

Otto E. Rossler

Faculty of Mathematics and Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, Germany

(February 27, 2015; October 11, 2020)

------------------------

A collective blunder or swindle in science consists in the systematic neglect of facts against better knowledge. Big groups tend to form a big consensus, while several small groups supporting differing common opinions give the truth a better chance to be captured. Especially so when a certain myth-by-consensus has reached a level of public consciousness that covers the whole planet. This is the case with the Big Bang Theory to date: Valid counterproofs have no chance to get accepted or even discussed. Thomas Kuhn wrote in the footsteps of Max Planck about this collective 30-years phenomenon.

In the present case, the situation is compounded by the fact that the old gospel enables a “Big Bang Experiment” to be performed down on earth any time soon – even though the artificial temperatures thereby generated have never existed before anywhere in the universe. The public has no chance to get informed about the “David-Goliath battle” that is raging for years between the “cc school” (cryodynamics; c-global) and the brain-washed majority (BWM) if that characterization is not too harsh a verdict.

i) Cryodynamics is a new fundamental discipline in physics, being the twin sister of venerable Thermodynamics. Like the latter it is in the last instance based on deterministic Hamiltonian-chaos theory in the footsteps of Henri Poincaré. The science of informatics is the natural home of both theories to date. Informatics grew out of probabilistic questions having to do with the transmission of messages. Its statistical nature has to do with the discreteness of the states assumed to exist. By contrast, deterministic chaos theory is based on the continuum and as such represents an even more fundamental theory. Alerting scientists in the field of informatics to the new deterministic statistical mechanics first seen by Yakov Sinai in 1963 makes maximum sense. The “paradoxical cooling” by hotter particles which surprisingly occurs under a condition of mutual attraction, promises unlimited free energy down on earth soon based on interactive cooling in a continuous hot-plasma reactor [1].

ii) c-global represents a return to the year 1907 in Einstein’s gravitation theory, to just before the “non-global c” entered in a way that only today can be fully clarified. The retrieved global c extends now to the region downstairs because Einstein’s famous gravitational redshift down there is automatically accompanied by a proportional if optically masked size increase and mass decrease [1]. The Viennese physicist Roman Sexl came close. The relativistic approach profits from an information-sciences based reasoning.

Both discoveries – the size increase and the mass decrease – eluded finding for more than a century. The fact that they mutually support each other adds to their importance in the field of informatics. The Big Bang Theory which they topple no doubt represents the best-known physics theory of all time.

The two results referred-to above belong to two different fields – conventional physics and relativistic physics. They support each other by independently ruling out the Big Bang. The popular international TV series of that name (“The Big Bang Theory”) represents an ideal forum for bringing the two results to public attention. Now, the same effect is about to be reached on an informatics forum. At issue is “the great silence” which for ten years greets the two new results in the public domain. It will be an experience to discuss them with my audience in Vienna. The latter will no doubt audaciously defend the current cosmological gospel. The latter as everyone knows insists on a written note having been left inside the cosmos reading “created 13.82 billion years ago.”

For the first time in history, the young generation – the largest of history – is equipped with a giant voice of its own, in the analysis of the genome. It so happens that another information-science based discipline – deterministic chaos theory – likewise gives this generation a powerful tool and vigorous voice. The two twin results highlighted above – Cryodynamics and c-global – can each be expressed in an information-science framework. A powerful argument in favor of this approach lies in Paul Dirac’s phrase “important results are simple.” Saint Augustine last said that the cosmos may well have been created ten minutes ago along with its infinite past and future. This type of free thinking finds its revival to date.

I thank György Darvas for a discussion.

A. Sanayei and O.E. Rossler, Chaotic Harmony – A Dialog about Physics, Complexity and Life. Springer Verlag 2014.

Such a claim needs to overcome 3 objections in view of unification of our 2 best theories (qm& gr) .

(Realism claims our theories captured the truth about the world, a belief.)

Argument 1: There is no easily constructed semantic thesis about the shared correspondence of the 2 theories to the world i. E the objects& concepts of 1 cannot be combined demsntically with the other.

Semantic realism assets that properties of sentences i. e having meaning, being true etc are objectively explained primarily typically by in terms of causal relationships or interactions or correspobdence to external world.

every declarative sentence in one's language is bivalent (determinately true or false) and evidence-transcendent (independent of our means of coming to know which), while anti-realism rejects this view in favour of a concept of knowable (or assertible) truth.

Argument 2: The unproven hypothesis of a commonly held by the 2 theories correspondence to reality.

This argument is a thesis based on epistemological realism, a philosophical position, a subcategory of objectivism, holding that what can be known about an object exists independently of one's mind. Thus we ned to combine the 2 theories in a way to obtain an independent of mind correspondence to reality which is possible if we direct our focus on the Common denominator mind independent theorizing of the 2 theories.

It is opposed to epistemological idealism. Epistemological realism is related directly to the correspondence theory of truth

Argument 3: lack of proven commutative principle of Metaphysical realism. MR is the thesis that the objects, properties and relations the world contains, collectively: the structure of the world [Sider 2011], exists independently of our thoughts about it or our perceptions of it. So if 2 theories are proven to be so, their marriage is also.

Realism has been the back one of physics metathinking i. E insistence of a truth marker for every truth.

It has a big influence in deciding how to incorporate or reject new ideas about progress in science or emphasis on certain a priori principles of how the world has to be, because science is benefited from is and its party a realist project. For example it promotes the Application of old tools to new problems and to theoretical unification, although it is valid route to unification andcrelating lod theories to new is a value added practice for this aim.

However, it it has led to undue conservativism in scientific activities like theory choice i. E anything beyond paradim Examples of science thinking is suspect unless it is intuitively similar to the real things

(same entities postulated as old theories for reasons beyond and above the experiences that postulated these theories) for is to believe they are real.

The velocity of light c is so enormously and disproportionately high in ordinary human scale in terrestrial Nature, that for all practical scientific, engineering and for everyday life; it can be assumed to be a constant. But Albert Einstein's turning this ordinary fact to an axiomatic/geometrical truth in his Special Theory of Relativity (SR), means that everything else in the universe including matter, abstract space and time or anything else; must be variable to conform to this truth. To keep this absolute truth in force, mathematical/geometric tools like the Lorentz Transforms (LTs), Time Transform (TT), 4D "spacetime" and the Gamma Factor (GF) were formulated in keeping with the absolute c alone; without any other scientific and/or empirical input! “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology”: INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Apparently as a reaction to the quantum phenomena discovered at the turn of the 20th century, and the break-down of much-valued Causality; Einstein did in physics what Emmanuel Kant did in philosophy, i.e., "Found it necessary to make room for faith" or Absolute God.

Theoretical physics and cosmology till today are in turmoil, since 1905, when Einstein with his SR pushed physics to the realm of mathematical/geometrical abstractions. This seemed to a comfortable escape from the uncertainty and the despair brought on by the brutal reality of the “Evil Quanta”. But SR and its extension to General Relativity (GR) has only led to more and more confusion, scholastic debates that continues for more than a century and still counting. The only justification for these esoteric theories come from subjective, contrived and even false claims of “experimental proofs”. But in spite of numerous “solid proofs”; the scholastic debates continue unabated. Einstein himself recognized the enormous confusion his theories of relativity caused in modern theoretical physics and cosmology, when he said, “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961).

It can now be shown that light photons are matter particles with variable mass from the lowest radio waves to the lowest gamma-ray range and their mass is inversely proportional to the cube of their velocity. The variable velocity of the light photons can only be observed at cosmic scale.; as the following series of publications would demonstrate:

Momentum – the Archilles’ Heel of Causality-based Physics: The Root of Its Miseries - from the Quantum to the Cosmic. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 304–312. https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9682

I’ve been reading an article called “The George Santos Syndrome – Why people believe their own lies”. Suppose someone makes up a piece of fiction about some part of their life. Apparently, we use the same neural circuitry to imagine something as to remember it. If we reinforce the fabricated fiction we imagined with enough detail to make it sound plausible, it will eventually be remembered as truth if we keep repeating the lie and let enough time pass.

What happens when that imagination takes a scientific turn? In trying to formulate a credible hypothesis that explains some mystery, we naturally imagine as much detail as possible and keep adding what we assume to be facts, as well as reasonable ideas, as the weeks and months and years pass. Somewhere down the path – maybe sooner, perhaps later – we might conclude that our hypothesis seems to equate with truth. Then it could well be embedded in memory as such.

Science is certainly not the same thing as lying. But there are similarities between the two processes (which may be why scientific fraud does occur sometimes). We need a way to determine whether the hypothesis developed over time is actually factual or simply a self-deception that grows stronger and stronger as years (and decades) roll by. That method is, of course, to conduct experiments. But are experiments the final answer?

According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity – Albert Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". So the experimental results (which are potentially interpreted in different ways) are valid. But they’re only valid in one frame of reference – from the human perspective of the scientists, who say length contraction occurs. Looked at from the equally valid universal frame of reference, there is no length contraction.

Some people will say the universal frame is irrelevant because we’re human and the human perspective is the only thing that matters. Some will reject the whole discussion because they disapprove of the example using Special Relativity. But the point is that experimentation doesn’t offer a final answer. There is no final answer and we just have to do the best we can to solve the mysteries of the universe. We grope our way through all the theories and experiments, and hopefully make a little progress in the search for truth. To put things another way – quantum mechanics’ Uncertainty Principle has expanded into an Uncertainty Principle affecting all of science. The indeterminacy doesn’t rule just the subatomic realm in the early 21st century. It also rules the macroscopic Space Telescopes, CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, and every detector or laboratory.

The history of science shows that theories are perishable. With every new truth that is revealed we get a better understanding of Nature and our conceptions and views are modified. – Nikola Tesla

Only Chinese medicine theories are time tested. Until now, we still follow them to do diagnoses and treatments with trust-able results.