Science topic

Physical Cosmology - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Physical Cosmology, and find Physical Cosmology experts.
Questions related to Physical Cosmology
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
12 answers
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 140 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.
The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.
As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.
I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be a rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.
The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper
====================================================
As a results of discussions and critical analysis, I have summarised my position a few answers below, but I have decided to consolidate the most recent here as a supplement to the attached pdf.
I intended to improve my arguments that would increase the level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence.
Assumptions:
  • Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied or explicit ontological status claims.
  • Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
  • The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [1]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[1], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that in contrast, the Planck mass SI/CGS expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The meaning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
Relevant answer
Answer
Crafting a Robust Rebuttal to the Critique
I previously explained my position in [1] .
I intended to improve it to make a point, increasing its level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence, and this can be typed in this message
Assumptions:
  • Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied ontological status.
  • Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
  • The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [2]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[2], we find that there is no equivalent dimensional constants in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge and produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and charge, leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that the Planck mass expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The mea@ning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
5 answers
Either history does NOT EXACTLY repeat or the future is too unpredictable to risk such rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation
Relevant answer
Answer
The statement aligns with Michel Talagrand's work on probability and randomness, which won him the 2024 Abel Prize.
Key Points:
  • Non-repeating History: Unique conditions and randomness prevent exact repetition.
  • Unpredictable Future: Talagrand's research shows precise predictions are difficult, highlighting the limits of deterministic models.
Talagrand’s Contributions:
  • Concentration Inequalities: Measure deviations in random variables, useful in finance and machine learning.
  • Stochastic Processes: Understand systems influenced by randomness over time.
Implications:
  • Risk Management: Must account for unpredictability.
  • Decision Making: Use probabilistic models.
  • Scientific Approach: Focus on likelihoods, not certainties.
Talagrand’s work shows the need to complement rationalism with probabilistic methods to handle real-world complexities.
2024 Abel prize: Michel Talagrand wins maths award for making sense of randomness | New Scientist
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
5 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The afterlife is discovred by the informations given by the messangers of allah that don't need any effort, but the extend current life needs expériences, and time.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
10 answers
1)No one can predict the future completely accurately.
2)So, all beings probably have a unique enough form.
3)Plus, the most fundamental essence of reality is unknown.
4)Thus, upon death, each being probably doesn't return.
Relevant answer
Answer
The corruption of thought and character suggests its unlikely, unless both are simply renewed.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
85 answers
Could anyone define and explain the concept 'virtual' in Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Metaphysics, and Artificial Intelligence? Or, do such definitions exist?
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
74 answers
I believe that it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot directly prove Causality. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy?
The main but very general explanation could be that mathematics and mathematical explanations are not directly about the world, but are applicable to the world to a great extent.
Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the general ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation, what the internal constitution of every part of it is, etc. Even when some very minute physical process is mathematized, the results are general, and not specific of the details of the internal constitution of that process.
No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means that they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended and non-infinitesimal. Hence, each part is relatively discrete, not mathematically discrete.
None of the parts of any physical existent is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Similarly, any extended being’s parts -- however near-infinitesimal -- are active, moving. This implies that every part has so (finite) impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change.
No other implication of To Be is so primary as these two (Extension-Change) and directly derivable from To Be. Hence, they are exhaustive of To Be.
Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-scientific and physical-ontological Law of all existents.
By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence, it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is continuous (but finite and not discrete) change (transfer of impact), no existent can be mathematically absolutely continuous or discrete in its parts or in connection with others.
Can logic show the necessity of all existents as being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.
WHAT ABOUT THE ABILITY OR NOT OF LOGIC TO CONCLUDE TO UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY?
In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality, if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence.
For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended, the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.
The point of addition now has been Change, which makes the description physical. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact.
Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.
In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications, we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.
Extension-Change, Universal Causality derived by their amalgamation, are the most fundamental Metaphysical, Physical-ontological, Categories. Since these are the direction exhaustive implications of To Be, all philosophy and science are based on these.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
221 answers
GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX (GCP):
INTRODUCTION TO GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (GCC)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Pre-scientific Law of Causality: A Short Introduction
Anything can exist only non-vacuously and absolutely in Extension (having parts) and simultaneously and inseparably also in Change (existents and their parts impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two mutually integral characteristics cannot exist. Physical entities are in finite change in themselves and in every part. In that state of finite change, they are also finitely stable in themselves. This alone is their identity as Extension-Change-wise processes. The entities within cosmos are such.
Hence, back to the cosmos. Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed measuremental concepts from the results of empirical activity of experiments and thought on Extended-Changing existents and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if these processes are physically existent. Without such existence, statistics has no foundation at all.
If not in Change, how can something physical exist in Extension alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in Change alone? Hence, Extension-Change are the two fundamental and exhaustively complete implications of To Be, and hence may be termed the ontological Categories of all existence.
Finally, Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality. That is, if anything exists, it is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...!
Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all?
In short, everything existent is causal: hence Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be.
Absolute vacuum is not an existent. The 3500+ years old gods are either vacua, or parts of this cosmos. And if the Absolute Divine should exist, the only remaining rational possibility is that it must have ubiquitously infinite Extension and infinite Change. Infinite Extension is not stability without Change. Infinite Extension must be just the infinitely intense state of affairs – infinite activity and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.
If the Divine exists, it must be in infinite stability in its state of infinite Change. But is it possible to have rational arguments in favour of its existence? The whole history of humanity has not yet produced one with enough truth probability. Can cosmology now accomplish this task? We do not yet know.
2. Gravitational Coalescence Paradox
Even if there is no common big bang within a fully finite-content universe, there will be expansions and contractions locally. Moreover, the universe will have outer limits. At the outer limits some gravitational and non-gravitational energies must be lost, because there is no force at the outskirts to block these from escaping. Additionally, if the universe has a finite but fixed speed limit of energy propagation, then what is lost at the outskirts can never be brought back by propagations that issue later. If there is a general expansion, then there will be contraction too. Naturally, there are consecutive expansions and contractions, however limited they are. These cannot go on infinitely, since the finite-content universe loses energy (convertible in terms of mass) at the outskirts.
A fully cyclic and geometrically fully spherical oscillating universe existing as the sole finite universe can never be defended. Within a finite (of course, very long) time, it will exteriorize its matter-energy and be entirely rarefied over a finite number of oscillations. This raises the question of the causal horizon of the first big bang of a finitely cyclic universe and/or the very beginning of this universe. If other such separate universes exist, the final residues of the first will form part of one or many of them, because the distance between them is always finite, and all of them have some gravitation.
Now there are the following two possible lines of solution for the first big bang of a finite-content universe: (1) the matter of our universe has come from other universes or (2) it was created in some way from a Source that is not a form of matter-energy with finite activity and finite stability (which finite activity and stability is the case only of the cosmos).
If the matter-energy of a finite oscillating universe is from other universes, there remains only the case of existence of an infinite number of them. All of them eventually will exteriorize their matter-energy into becoming parts of other universes in finite durations. Such universes exist at finite distances. Gravitation from one such universe will affect similar neighbour universes in finite time. So, they should coalesce gravitationally with each other and with others over the course of time. Gravitation has a finite propagation velocity, not infinite. If gravitation can vary in velocity, each such local gravitational coalescence will have a highest limit, whatever, of gravitational velocity at each phase of expansion from a common central black hole.
Moreover, at any time with respect to one finite-content universe, there are only a finite number of universes in mutual gravitational attraction, since an infinitely spatiotemporal universe can never form a fully gravitationally related infinite-content conglomeration. If it could, there would again appear the contradiction of infinite mass, density etc. and infinite velocity, which is the same as the absolutely miraculous action-at-an-infinite-distance. We do not need it.
The mass-and-volume differences among coalescences do not matter. Due to the tendency of matter as groups of island universes to form ever wider gravitational conglomerations or coalescences, the formation of an eventual common center for each such wider coalescence is a must. There is no time when a coalescence of such universes existed or exists without gradually forming a common gravitational center. This conclusion is absolutely inevitable if all existing universes and parts thereof are gravitational.
No such coalescence, however wide, can bring back the gravitons it has radiated to the peripheries from the common gravitational center at a time before or during or after its big bang or big crunch – and even if there is no big bang and big crunch. This process can only continue forwards forming ever wider coalescences; and never backwards in a de-coalescence or de-coherence of gravitational coalescences, because gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of some sort of energy propagations.
If the cosmological scalar Λ-addition is a dark energy qualified solely by its alleged ability to repel, no amount of dark energy should possess the capacity to attach itself to any other dark energy quantum. Ipso facto, it never exists in any real universe. If it includes also gravitational radiation, it is impossible to understand why there should be these ad hoc quanta of repulsion if, naturally, the limits of density that each conglomeration of matter-energy possesses by reason of its mass, volume etc. can produce repulsion between parts of the conglomeration after the conglomeration has attained critical density.
As is evident, it is irrational to posit the existence of repulsons – as quanta / wavicles of repulsion to keep dark energy on par with gravitation. Hence, I discuss gravitational coalescences to theoretically circumvent any irresolvable problem that the concept of dark energy can offer.
It is common knowledge that gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of energy propagation from any gravitating material body. This should take place also from within a universe to other universes. Hence, there should be coalescences of universes at some time or other due to gravitational attraction.
At no time relative to the coalescing universes of universes can an infinite coalescence be actualized via gravitational influence from a central black hole common to all the infinite number of universes, although infinite such gravitationally coalesced universes, groups of universes, etc. exist in an infinite-content multiverse.
Hence, no gravitational coalescence, however big, is a gravitational member of an infinite number of gravitational coalescences. This fact and the fact of loss of energy at the fringes of universes flow logically from the foregoing discussions. I shall now define in the following paragraph the paradox of matter-energy creation implied above.
The Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP): At any time in an infinite multiverse, there will be an infinite number of gravitationally ever broadening coalescences, none of which can be traced back to other such coalescences for their origin. Each maximal gravitational coalescence at any timerelative to the local set of coalescences is irreducibly finite and hence has a finite past in the absence of any past contact with any other outer universes.
Each of the infinite number of coalescences is thus cosmogenetically isolated from other such coalescences, because, at any time, there exist an infinite number of coalescences which are cosmogenetically isolated and cannot be traced for any causal inheritance from an infinite number of them. All the universes from which a certain universe has had causal inheritance is already included within its broadest possible gravitational coalescence.
3. Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology
The above Paradox facilitates the question to be posed of the origin of each such gravitational coalescence in the finite past of each such, since at any given time none of the designated infinite coalescences has had past gravitational or any other causal contacts with any other cosmic entity. I term the foregoing discussion the backbone of Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
58 answers
INFINITE-ETERNAL MULTIVERSE
Raphael Neelamkavil
Ph. D. (Causality in Quantum Physics), Dr. phil. (Causality in Cosmology)
We cannot see, or predict the existence or not of limits of the edges of the universe. But, merely due to our inability to see or predict, the universe need not be infinite in content and extent. Similarly, nor should it be taken as finite in content and extent. Any number of insistent avowals on experimental proofs become useless here.
Some have attempted to determine the content of the universe by first determining the geometry of the universe by depending on their determination of isotropy and anisotropy at any local region or layer of the universe. Then they formulate the separate geometry of the finite or infinite spatial or temporal content of the universe, in order thus to indicate the matter-energy content (as finite or infinite) of the whole the universe...!
Does the absence of empirical evidence mean that we should not speak of the rational cases possible in the maximal, medial, and minimal cases of extent of time and space, and of content of matter-energy in the universe? I do not think so. Why not we treat each possible case and sub-case separately and come to conclusions not merely about the geometry, but also of the rationally most acceptable amount of content of the universe?
Many people in the physics and astrophysics of the whole cosmos often tend to insist that the mathematics used to derive conclusions from the particular / local portions of the universe to the total / overall cosmos will help to conclude physically to whatever the mathematics suggests. This is because they tend to equivocate the physics to the mathematics.
If in a physical system within a controlled environment on earth tends to reverse all the physical dispersion of matter (where no real tab is possible on the loss of a minute energy from the system), then they tend to conclude on a cosmic scale theory on the energy loss at the fringes of each local universe or portion of it that all energy propagated will return at some point. This goes without saying, they tend to conclude so.
If there is an internal gravitational reason that makes the loss of energy at the fringes from the first moment of expansion (due to whatever amount of expansion, because there is no total absence of expansion and contraction in any physical system!), then it is rationally and astrophysical-cosmologically clear that some energy will have left the system at least at the speed of light at the first moment of the process of expansion considered and it will continue at an intensive or less intensive mode.
Then many cosmologists tend to insist that our finite-content big bang universe (which either is just the totality of the cosmos that ever has existed, or is only our finite-content portion of the infinite-content cosmos) has only two options: (1) EITHER it will go on expanding eternally and become rarefied forever (in which case it could already have been so if the universe had no origin), (2) OR it will oscillate between expansion and contraction (which is the cyclic model, which too incurs a non-eternal process of rarefaction of the finite content by reason of the fringe-loss of energy).
In the latter case, all the mathematics-is-omnipotent sort of physicists just calculate the implications of their theory by depending merely on the strength of the mathematics. They say first that in any system most of the matter-energy return in any system, because even in the case of entropy of a given system the loss of energy – in case it is the case – is not great with respect to the system.
This is very inaccurate and in any case gives rise to the prejudice that the negligible loss is zero loss for all purposes. We do not know for sure whether every energy wavicle that left the system returns. It is impossible to measure the loss so exactly. The “sufficiently accurate empirical measure” is no guarantee for a total correctness. They then say that, whether there is a big bang universe or not, every system contains and preserves all the energy that it has, merely because of their presumption that matter and energy are interconvertible, and hence all the energy that left at the outskirts should return.
Lots of geometrical restrictions are then rendered for the fringe-loss energy to return: that the fringes are not infinite, any universe has within itself all that its space-time has, etc. In none of these do they try to really rethink the foundations of their merely mathematical concept of spacetime with respect to the fringes of local universes from the start to the finish of any amount of expansion and contraction that any cosmic body should have. Consequently, they consider the local universe as a complete system – by their unresearched presumption – and presuppose that cosmic bodies within that universe can lose energy forever, which of course will be within the system of this universe. Does anyone sense an inconsistency here?
As we all know, the second law of thermodynamics is formulated with almost closed terrestrial systems in mind, and no methods exist to perfectly measure all the minute losses of energy from within the system. If gravitation alone is involved in bringing back all the lost energy of the finite-content local universe, then the second law need not have applicability there at all!
Merely because we have formulated the physics in such a way that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply also to the entropy of the outermost fringes of the local universe, we cannot insist that the energy lost at the fringes will automatically return without the agency of a later gravitational propagation. One should naturally use the wisdom that no gravitational propagation issued before or after the start of the expansion can run slower or faster than the lost (gravitational and/or non-gravitational) energy and bring the lost energy back to the centre for recycling for use in another phase of the cycle of expansion and contraction.
In order to avoid this state of affairs, many might bring up geometries and cosmological theories requiring no big bang or big crunch. But who can insist that the local universe never has any amount of expansion and contraction? Even if it does not have expansion and contraction, energy at the fringes will be propagated off. There is no special wall there (except the geometrical walls created by a few cosmologists) to block the outward-bound propagations forever!
In short, the big bang universe cannot go on eternally in existence as a conglomeration with the same amount of matter-energy. If it had to be insulated from all other possible universes outside, it was certainly not in existence from the past eternity proper to it, because the fringe-loss of energy, however minute, could have exhausted such an eternally existent finite-content universe an eternity ago. It would have to evaporate all or most of its content, and hence, if it had existed from the past eternity as the sole physical cosmos, it should already have exhausted itself.
Why is it that this our finite-content big bang (or slightly expanding) universe did not already conclude at an earlier point of time by getting fully evaporated into the outer realms, if it was not created at all and if it really existed from eternity? Hence, IF MERELY THIS FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSE EXISTS, some sort of creation of this finite-content universe should have been the case. Hence, let us leave this possibility – for otherwise scientistic scientists would begin attacking me.
Let’s ask: Why should only this one universe exist? The following are the only two possible sub-cases:
(1) Probably there existed, from the past eternity of each universe, an infinite number of universes bigger or smaller. These need not have an origin, since the small amount of energy that each universe loses at each of its expansion- and contraction phases will end up at some finite future in other similar universes; and perhaps this is enough for an eternal co-existence of each of them from the past eternity proper of all parts of each such universe as parts of one or many other universes within the infinite-content universe.
(2) If the one universe was the result of an instant creation or continuous creation of various parts, there should be other infinite number of universes too – because, the Source should not be this same universe or other universes, and the Source should then have the eternal ability of performing continuous creation. Moreover, the other universes in the cosmos cannot create themselves, and this big bang universe of ours cannot create itself, except when they have infinite activity within and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.
Any number of arguments articulating a quantum vacuum creating new universes from themselves will naturally involve creation only from already existent matter-energy and/or universes. Existing matter-energy – however empty or full the quantum vacuum as the supposed agent of creation is – cannot create fresh matter-energy except from within existing matter-energy in each universe. But this is finite in amount, and cannot go on by fresh creation.
Transfer and re-formulation of matter-energy is not creation. It is just a new mixing with other matter-energy at finite distances. This activity is already included in the processes of the universe, by including which the finite-content universe/s exhaust themselves into their own outer spaces within a finite time, not permitting further prospects of new creation.
In the case of eternal and continuous creation from a Source, it must be admitted that the universe is infinite in content, that is, contains an infinite number of finite-content universes. This is because the Source cannot be this infinite-content cosmos or be part of it, and must exist continuously in the act of infinite and eternal creation.
I do not insist that the above is the case. I have presented one possible case given by any sort of open reasoning. I have elaborated all these and similar other cases of cosmogenesis in the 647 pages of my book: Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin. It is the result of more than 35 years of reading, research, and cogitations – from my very school days.
I have published a short but differently argued version of it in less than 100 pages, presenting the logic of these reasonings in a more simplified manner, so that an ordinary educated person interested in cosmology can grasp the basic lines of the above book easily. It is titled: Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All, KDP Amazon, 2022. This book is available as Kindle and Printed, for a few Euros or Dollars.
I suggest these books because I cannot write more than a few pages here….
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
43 answers
(using simple  example or logic)
Relevant answer
Answer
Among the axioms from Newton's theory are:
(a)   There exists an absolute space, in which Newton's laws are true. An inertial frame is a reference frame in relative uniform motion to absolute space.
(b)  All inertial frames share a universal time.
Galilean relativity can be shown as follows. Consider two inertial frames S and $S'$. A physical event in $S$ will have position coordinates $r = (x, y, z)$  and time $t$ in $S$, and $r' = (x' , y', z')$   and time $t'$ in $S'$. By the second axiom above, one can synchronize the clock in the two frames and assume $t = t'$. Suppose $S'$   is in relative uniform motion to $S$ with velocity $v$.  Then     (1)   $x ' = x'=x-vt$.
Whether exists the rest frame  in physics? In  [1,2] Guerra  and Abreu considered questions of absolute space and relativity, see also [4]. In particular,  they  assume that there is one frame where the one-way speed of light in vacuum is the same in all directions of space and equal to $c$. This frame  can be identified with the rest frame, and it is shown that this frame is unique. They have denoted this rest frame as  Einstein’s frame.
They show   that the meaning of the Principle of Relativity  is not incompatible with the existence of a preferred, absolute, frame. Further they  establish  that the one-way speed of light in vacuum is not $c$  in moving inertial frames (the two-way speed of light of course is) and simultaneity is absolute, contrary to what results in Einstein's relativity. The general expressions for the transformation of coordinates between inertial frames are obtained.  In particular  [1],  they use that the two-way speed of light in vacuum is $c$ in any inertial frame  to conclude  $L'=\gamma L$ (formula (3.8) there, where \gamma is Lorentz factor ) and therefore
(2)    $x'=\gamma (x-vt)$.
It seems that we need to explain  the situation in which formulas (1) and (2)   can be applied  and   what is difference between an  absolute frame and  Einstein’s frame.
Whether  Einstein's frame is not moving ?
We can abond
Therefore  we believe that it makes sense to consider models that modify the second postulate and that in the future there will be new theories that better approximate reality, see [3].
[1]  R. de Abreu and V. Guerra, Relativity – Einstein’s lost frame, extra]muros[, Lisboa, SourceOAI
[2] Vasco Guerra and Rodrigo de Abreu, Special Relativity in Absolute Space:  from a contradiction in terms to an obviousness, https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0603/0603258.pdf
[3} M. Mateljevic, Lorentz Transformation and time dilatation,
January 2024 Annals of Mathematics and Physics 7(1):016-022, DOI: 10.17352/amp.000104
[4] Rainer Walter K\"{u}hne, General Relativity Requires Absolute Space and Time
October 2002, Source arXiv, arXiv:physics/0209107v1 [physics.gen-ph] 30 Sep 200
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
1 answer
.
I had said Redshift is pre ordained in the Doppler Equations rearranged and Big Bang is a not an absolute fact but a relative fact. Universe as Multiverse was always there and locally they will have emergence from White Holes behind the Black Holes.
Also see my He-2-4 Work - the first paper in history to model an important nucleus and calculate its mass in 3 parity ways, satisfying 6 constraints and discovering 3 new constraints. And showing evidence of Gravity.
Relevant answer
Answer
My Summary on He-2-4 has been hitting records as "Most Read Question" across Physics Departments all over the world.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
37 answers
Why do astrophysical and cosmological theories accept the merely mathematically thinkable ISOTROPY (the principle that all directions in the cosmos are alike, and hence no direction is preferred in any manner than any other) in large regions of the cosmos as the general empirical case and as the absolute case in the cosmos? I think the most important reason is the dogmatic faith of physicists and mathematicians in the statistical "counts" / "measurements" of particular regions of the universe.
In fact, the reason why statistical measurements are being used is that there are differences between every two regions, subregions, etc. everywhere and in every direction in the universe. This fact is forgotten in the dogmatic faith in the power of mathematics!
If there are local differences here, and local differences there, and the same everywhere, then we cannot generalize the same local differences into supra-regional overall isotropy! But, for mathematical purposes, some theories generalize these details statistically, but this is never the absolute case anywhere, in any direction!
Even in the pages of RG, I have had discussions where some have continued to insist on the power of mathematics over physics and that those who cannot take the statistical average as the general case (and hence as the absolute case) are being stupid, because mathematics does wonders!
Let me now take the simple example of a balloon in order to discuss the cosmological aspect of identity of parts, ISOTROPY (of course, this is not identity), simultaneity of processes, cyclic cosmic evolution, etc.
I consider them all as very simplistic and silly, ad hoc, meant only for ideal mathematical consumption, and not meant for physics and cosmology. For example, how can anything absolutely cyclic, spherical etc. be the real case, if there are ANISOTROPIES everywhere in the universe?
A balloon may be inflated with air at a measurably very stable and constant rate. But between any two points of it there must be some difference of rate of expansion. This is the natural case. Nothing else can come and stop this process in the cosmic case. If not, all the points in it would naturally have to be made of the SAME thing, which is impossible.
Similarly, all our measurements and the predictions of isotropy and related equalities of potentially measurable and comparable spacetimes, may be good in theory. But these cannot be as equal as we may conclude from the theories that result.
Merely because of the minute but naturally true difference between their existence in terms of the different potentially measurable spacetimes, it should naturally be concludable that there is no absolute identity of physical existence, structure, evolution, etc. between any two parts in the cosmos.
NATURALLY, THE MINUTE DIFFERENCES IN PARTS OF THE COSMOS, IN THE COURSE OF TIME, SHOULD EXPRESS THEMSELVES AS GREAT DIFFERENCES AND RESULT IN THE MANY COSMIC ANISOTROPIES THAT WE SHOULD FIND AND THEORETICALLY PRESUPPOSE, NOT ONLY IN SOME OBJECTS OF THE COSMOS BUT ALSO IN VAST REGIONS OF THE COSMOS. NATURALLY, THIS MUST BE THE CASE EVEN IN THE VARIOUS UNIVERSES WITHIN THE COSMOS, IF THE COSMOS IS AN INFINITE-CONTENT CONGLOMERATION OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSES.
This then becomes a pre-physically self-evident fact. This shows something interesting: Concluding CONSTANCY OR EQUALITY OF RATE OF EVOLUTION from the values concluded “at present”, “a few times”, that seem to be “constant" CAN AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A SELF-GOAL IN PHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, AND COSMOLOGY.
Hence, in my opinion, any sufficiently big portion of the cosmos, under expansion or contraction, should at some time experience some sort of contraction or expansion as the opposite evolutionary case. This evolutionary case is not a recurrence of everything as such, but a forward process!
This must be the case also in the infinite number of parts of the cosmos, if the cosmos is of infinite matter-energy content.
Penrose and some of his colleagues seem to have held a sort of CONFORMALLY CYCLIC COSMOS theory. On the other hand, we have the miracle-feeder theories of CONSTANT INFLATION WITH RESPECT TO OUR LOCAL UNIVERSE. I consider these theories, too, as fads INVENTED TO EXPLAIN SOME COSMIC DISCOVERIES.
In the case of Penrose, it was the recent discovery of circles (spheres) of the CMB which they claim are "around the big bang universe of ours".
In the case of Alan Guth and others, the inflation theory has been a contrivance to keep astrophysics and cosmology away from some speculations, which Guth recently admitted to be not a very realistic solution!
The extent of inapplicability involved in the concept of isotropy may be extended also to theories of the overall shape of the outermost realms of each expanding universe. Some speak of empirical evidence for the outermost layer of such a universe to be spherical. From this conclusion, they even proceed to emphasize that it is absolutely spherical, citing again the same “empirical” evidence! They do not forget to claim that all cosmic shapes are such! But the question to be put at them is whether the so-called spherically exact expansion of our universe would mean also that the clusters of galaxies, galaxies themselves, stars, planets, etc. should also expand as do the universe in a spherical manner as they claim!
Relevant answer
Answer
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
44 answers
ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, COSMOLOGY AND SCIENCES OF ALL DESCRIPTIONS
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. The Logic behind Physics
Physics students begin with meso-world experiments and theories. Naturally, at the young age, they get convinced that the logic thinking and research as applied to the meso-world level of physical phenomena that they follow is identical with the ideal of scientific method and hence there is nothing more general and advanced. Common social convictions on scientific temper may further confirm them in this belief. It then becomes a faith for them.
This has far-reaching consequences in the formation of the concept of science and of the logic of science, because the majority such students do not advance far forward, they fail to get the meaning of the foundations of the sciences, and thus remain spreading the elementary concept of science belonging to the meso-world logical applications. And as they get surprised at the quantum revolution, they tend to think or write books on topics like: “the whole universe is within the quanta in an atom”, because they think that the foundations of science are all questioned and set topsy-turvy by quantum physics!
But unquestionably, it is not very difficult to realize that even the quantum-physically upset sense of the logic behind the application of the scientific method is almost the same old manner of realizing (1) the ideal of scientific method and (2) the more general ideal of reason, namely, observe, hypothesize, verify, theorize, attempt to falsify for experimental and theoretical advancements, etc. upon meso-world realities, phenomena, data, etc.
Do teachers and professors of physics or of other sciences (1) instruct their students early enough on the advantages of thinking and experimenting in accordance with the above-mentioned fundamental fact of all scientific practice being founded on ever-better definable foundations of physics that are clearly based on the existence of physical objects as processes, or (2) make them capable of realizing the significance of this in the course of time? I think that they do not.
This shows that physicists (and for that matter other scientists) fail to a great extent at empowering themselves and their students in favour of the growth of science, thought, and life. The logic being followed in the above-said elementary mode of practice of scientific method at earlier stages of instruction, naturally, becomes for the students the genuine form of logic, instead of being an instantiation of the ideal of logic as reason.
This seems to be the case in most of the practices and instruction of all sciences till today. A change of the origin, justification, and significance of the use of logic in physics from the very start of instruction in the sciences is the solution for this problem. The change must be in the foundations and in the instructions on the foundations. Even at elementary stages of instruction this can be done, just like the SI units are being taught effectively very early in the school.
All humans equate (1) the physical-ontologically grounded and non-grounded forms of logic of each science, and even logic as such, with (2) reason as such. Reason as such, in fact, is more generic of all kinds of logic, and must be taken as that which must be realized in logic. But this attitude is not being followed in any science as of now. This has been my observation so far.
Practically none of the professors (of physics as well as of other sciences) terms the version of logic of their science as an instantiation of reason, which may be accessed ever better as the science eventually grows into something more elaborate and complex. Hence, a foretaste of the same given in form of the simple foundations of all sciences at the very start may go a long way to enhance the growth of science and human life. Physicist gets more and more skilled at reasoning only as and when she/he wants to grow continuously into a genuine physicist. The number of such persons is small. Increasing this number is one of the aims of the above-said kind of instruction in the sciences.
As the same students enter the study of recent developments in physics like quantum physics, relativity, nano-physics (Greek nanos, “dwarf”; in physics, @ 10-9), atto-physics (@ 10-18), cosmology, etc., they forget to make place for the strong mathematical effects that are due by reason of the conceptual and processual paradoxes which in turn are due to epistemological and physical-ontological differences between the object-sizes and the sizes of ourselves / our instruments. Some of the best examples of physicists forgetting the foundations of physics in existence are the Uncertainty Principle, the statistical interpretation of QM, cosmic singularity, quantum-cosmological multiverse from quantum vacua, counterfactual multiverse, etc.
They tend to believe that some of these and similar physics may defy our (meso-physical) manner of using logic and its source, namely, reason – but by this they mistakenly intend that all or many forms of logic and reason would have to fail if such instances of advanced physics are accepted in all of physics. As a result, again, their logic tends to continue to be that of the same meso-world level as has been taken while they did elementary levels of physics.
Does this not mean that the ad hoc make-believe interpretations of the logic of the foundations of QM, quantum cosmology, etc. are the culprits that naturally make the logic of traditional physics inadequate as the best representative of the logic of nature? In short, in order to find a common platform, the logic of traditional and recent branches of physics must improve so to adequate itself to nature’s logic. Nature’s logic is more than logic and its source, reason. Nature’s logic is the source of reason and thus of logic.
Why do I not suggest that the hitherto logic of physics be substituted by quantum logic, relativity logic, thermodynamic logic, nano-logic, atto-logic, or whatever other logic of any recent branch of physics that may be imagined? One would substitute logic in this manner only if one is overwhelmed by what purportedly is the logic of the new branches of physics.
But, in the first place, I wonder why logic should be equated directly with reason. The attempt should always be to bring the logic of physics in as much correspondence with the logic of nature as possible, so that reason in general can get closer to the latter. This must be the case not merely with physicists, but also with scientists from other disciplines and even from philosophy, mathematics, and logic itself.
Therefore, my questions are: What is the foundational reason that physicists should follow and should not lose at any occasion? Does this, how does this, and should this get transformed into forms of logic founded on a more general sort of physical reason? Wherein does such reason consist, and where does such reason exist? Can there be a form of logic in which the logical laws depend not merely on the micro- or mega- or meso-size of objects or the epistemological level available at the given object sizes, but instead, on the universal characteristics of all that exist? Or, should various logics be used at various occasions, like in the case of the suggested quantum logic, counterfactual logic, etc.?
Just like logic is not to be taken as a bad guide by citing the examples of the many logicians, scientists, and “logical” human beings doing logic non-ideally, I believe that there is a kernel of reason behind physics, justified solely on the most basic and universal characteristics of physical existents. These universals cannot belong solely to physics, but instead, to all the sciences, because they belong to all existents.
This kernel of reason in physics is to be insisted upon at every act of physics, even if many physicists (and other scientists and philosophers) may naturally not ensure that kernel in their work. I suggest that ensuring this involves not merely the constant attempt to formulation of nature’s logic in our reason and its instantiations in logic. It involves what can lead to the said results – and that is to formulate the very foundational logic of physics based on the generalities of all that exist and on the generalities of knowing all that exist.
I shall discuss these possibly highest universals and connect them to logic meant as reason, when I elaborate on: 3. The Ontology behind Physics (ALSO a discussion in RG).
The matter on which physicists do logical work is existent matter-energy in its fundamental implications and the derivative implications from the fundamental ones. It cannot be the all sorts of posited unobservables which cannot at all exist as physical processes but only as ad hoc necessities of some theoretical procedures in physics that are considered as theoretical existents.
This fact is to be kept in mind while doing any logically acceptable work physics, because existent matter-energy corpora in processuality delineate all possible forms of use of logic in physics, which logic is properly to be termed nature’s reason. Physics (and other sciences) needs to create a mode of presentation of logic where impossible theoretical entities can naturally be ostracized from the scenario of physics. This is possible only if the necessary, most general, Categorial demands of physical existence are inducted in all forms of logic of physics.
Moreover, theoretical and experimental conclusions are not drawn merely by one subject (person) in physics for use by the same subject alone. Hence, we have the following two basic requirements to note in the use of logic in physics and the sciences: (1) the intersubjectively awaited necessity of human reason in its delineation in logical methods should be upheld at least by a well-informed community, and (2) the need for such reason behind approved physics should then be spread universally with an open mind that permits and requires further scientific advancements.
These will make future generations and generations to further question the genuineness of the logic of specific realization of reason, and constantly encourage attempts to falsify theories or their parts, so that physics can bring up more genuine instantiations of human reason. But is such human reason based on the reason active in nature? How to make it base itself on the reason in nature?
Although the above arguments and the following definition of the logic being followed in mainstream and traditional physics might look queer or at least new and unclear for many physicists, for many other scientists, for many mathematicians, and even for many logicians, I attempt here to define logic for use in physics as the fundamental aspect of reason that physics should uphold constantly in every argument and conclusion due from it:
The logic behind physics is (1) the methodological science (2) of approaching the best intersubjectively rational and structural consequences (3) in what may be termed thought (not in emotions) (4) in clear terms of ever higher truth-probability achievable in statements and conclusions (5) in languages of all kinds (ordinary language, mathematics, computer algorithms, etc.) (6) based on the probabilistically methodological use, (7) namely, of the rules of all sensible logics that exemplify the Laws of Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle, (8) which in turn must pertain to the direct and exhaustive physical implications of “to exist”.
Here I have not defined logic in physics very simply as “the discipline of the laws and rules of thought”, “the methodic discipline of attaining truths”, etc., for obvious reasons clarified by the history of the various definitions of logic during the past centuries.
But here comes up another set of questions: Is the reason pertaining to physical nature the same as the most ideal form of human reason? From within the business of physics, how to connect the reason of physical nature with that of humans? I may suggest some answers from the epistemological and ontological aspects. But, before that, I would appreciate your responses in this regard too.
2. The Epistemology behind Physics
The whole of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. are not the exclusive property of physics, or of any other particular science, or of all the sciences together. Each of them may apply the various general logical, epistemological, and ontological principles in ways suitable to their disciplines, but cannot claim that theirs is the genuine or the possibly best logic, epistemology, ontology, etc.
There is yet another manner, beyond the sciences, wherein (1) the object range and viewpoint range become the broadest possible in epistemology, and (2) the epistemological manner in which the two are connected becomes satisfactory enough to explain both the aspects and the procedures involved between them. This is a philosophical version of epistemology. Even this manner is not complete without including the various logics, epistemologies, and ontologies of the particular sciences.
Before pointing out the special manner in which physics could use the more general aspects of epistemology in itself, let me mention a general trend in science, especially physics. I have seen many students of physics and mathematics mistaking the logical ways in which they do experiments and theories as the same as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics.
They do not even think of the epistemology of physics. The clear reason for this is that their epistemology is a crude correspondence theory of truth, and this is outdated. Take any of the best physicists, and we can see in their works the underlying undefined epistemology being closer to the correspondence theory of truth than anything else. I would like to suggest in the following a clear spine of epistemological rudiments for physics.
The pragmatism and scientism at the foundations of practical physics does not accept anything other than the correspondence theory as prescriptive of all the truths of science. Of course, the amount of finality achieved in truths will be the measure of tenability of their truth-probability. But this is to be reserved to the most general truths derivable from any science or philosophy. Low-level truths are much beyond the purview of correspondence between the objectual and the theoretical. Unaware of these facts, most physicists take the difference lightly.
It is a pity that the students of the sciences and also philosophy students with scientistic orientations even think of their ways of permitting truth correspondence to all their truths as the sole possession of scientists, which they suppose are being usurped from philosophy in the course of the past centuries in such a way that philosophy will have ever less reason to exist, or no more reason to exist. Imaginably, in this pride they are encouraged by their presumption of possession of the scientific temper in an exceptional manner.
More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophy, are a mere waste of time. If you want me to give an example, I suggest that you watch some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking, where he declares philosophy as a waste of time, or as an unscientific affair. The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics, and that philosophers are falsely proud of having logic as their methodology.
The reason why the whole of logic does not belong to the sciences is that the viewpoint from which sensation, thought, and feeling may be exercised in the broadest possible manner is not exhausted even by totaling all the object ranges of all the sciences. Each of them does logic in a manner limited by its object range. How then can their logic be the best possible? There is one and only one general science of which the viewpoint is the broadest. It is that science in which the viewpoint is that of the direct implications of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Against this backdrop, although the following definition might seem queer for many physicists, mathematicians, and other scientists, there are reasons why I define here epistemology for use in physics. The following definition itself will clarify the reasons:
The epistemology behind physics is (1) the science of justifications (2) for the systemic fact, the systemic manner of achieving, the enhancement of the systemic manner of achieving, and the foundations of systems (3) of rationally derivable and explicable theoretical consequences of human efforts (4) to grasp the connection between physically existent reality and their pertinent realities of all sorts (5) in an asymptotic approach of truth-correspondence from the procedures of knowing (in terms of the pertinent realities of existent realities) onto the physically existent processes of reality, (6) in a spirally broadening and deepening manner of truth probability, (7) which serves to achieve ever better approximations of the epistemological ideal of knowing, namely, Reality-in-general, (8) starting from reality-in-particular, and (9) by use of the highest theoretical generalities pertaining to Reality-in-total and its parts, namely, reality-in-particular.
The epistemology of physics does not take the viewpoint of the To Be of Reality-in-total. But it must obey the primary implications of To Be and the viewpoint of the To Be of Reality-in-total. What these implications are, will be treated below, under “3. The Ontology of Physics”. Epistemology in philosophy may be slightly more general than the epistemology of physics, in the sense that philosophy takes the viewpoint of all physical processes that exist and attempt to view every reality from that viewpoint alone. If not, philosophy has no justification for existence.
Naturally, the epistemology of the sciences will not be so general as that of philosophy. But obedience to it is better for the epistemology of physics; and the advantages of such obedience will be seen in the results of such physics and such sciences.
The epistemology of physics, therefore, will attempt to theorize, know, and predict all that exist, but from the viewpoint exclusively of experimentally / empirically verifiable methods based on what is directly or indirectly before us, namely, the physical processes at our reach. The epistemology of systematically and systemically (i.e., systematically of systems of systems … ad libitum) moving in the use of logic from the given existent physical processes to the details of the not immediately given but ever more minute or ever more distant physical existents is the epistemology of physics. The above definition would, in my opinion, be sufficient to cover as broad and minute procedures as possible in physics. Time has come to appropriate it in physics, lest much advantage be lost for too long.
Not that philosophy does not trust this approach of physics. But philosophy looks for the Categorial presuppositions of existence behind all that is verifiable or verified empirically and empirical-theoretically. These presuppositions are the starting points and guiding principles of philosophy. There is a stark difference between a methodology of this kind and the methodology of basing everything on the truths derived from empirical and empirical-theoretical research. Now from this viewpoint you may judge the following suggestions and determine whether the epistemology of doing physical science is as broad as that of philosophizing.
Every moment, our body-brain nexus is continuously but finitely in contact with itself and with a finite extent of the environment, more or less simultaneously, but in differing intensities, no matter however elementary. The primary mode of this is through sensation, using all available and necessary aspects of it as the case may be. Thought and feeling are possible only in continuity with sensation, and never without it.
But one special characteristic of the human brain differentiating it from others is that sensation, feeling, and thought can very consciously induct into, and consequently deduce from the presuppositions of, all that exist – no matter whether they are a finite environment or infinite – and all these solely from the finite experience from the finite environment at hand. This seems to be absent in less human living beings.
Moreover, the second, but more forgotten, characteristic of the human brain differentiating it from others is that sensation, thought, and feeling are affective, tending to itself and to others, in the broadest sense of the term ‘affective’. It is the manner in which every human being tends in his/her sensation, feeling, and thought. Hence, all processes of knowing will be coloured by affection.
The manner and then the so-constructed broader background in which sensation, feeling, and thought take place is affection, which we term also love in a very general sense. Sensation, feeling, and thought are the three interconnected modes of tending of the body-brain to itself and to the environment, tend always to connect itself with the environment.
But here too the important differentiating characteristic in human body-brains is their capacity to tend to the environment beyond the immediate environments, and further beyond them, etc. ad libitum. There is nothing wrong in theoretically considering that there is the tendency in humans to converting this sort of ad libitum to ad infinitum, irrespective of whether these environments can really go ever broader at infinity in the content of matter-energy within Reality-in-total. Infinity is another term here for generalizing.
Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.
All generalizations tend beyond onto the infinite perfection of the essential aspects of the concepts pertaining to the object-range. Not that the object-range must be infinite. Instead, the tending presumes an infinitization due to the idealization involved in generalizations. This is a kind of infinitization that does not need an infinite Reality-in-total in existence. All the concepts that a human being can use are based in the infinitization of the essential aspects of the concepts in their ideality. But behind these mental ideals there are the ideals, namely, the ontological universals pertaining to the groups (natural kinds) of processual entities in the environment. These are the ideals in the things and are not in us. These too are idealizations at the realm of the natural kinds that form part of Reality-in-total.
Without loving in the sense of tending to, as human do, to the inner and outer environments in their generalities there is no sensation, feeling, and thought. The tending to need not be due to the love of the objects but due to the love of something that pertains to them or to the ontologically universal ideals pertaining to the objects. From this it is clear that the relation between the processual objects and the sensing-feeling-knowing mind is set by the ontological universals in the natural kinds of existent physical processes.
At the part of the mind there should be idealized universals of conceptual quality, because the ontological universals in natural kinds cannot directly enter and form concepts. This shows that the conceptual universals (called connotative universals) are the mental reflections of ontological universals that are in the natural kinds. In short, behind the epistemology of sensation, feeling, and thought there are the ontology and epistemology of loving in the sense of tending to, due to the otherness implied between oneself and the environment.
There may be philosophers and scientists who do not like the idea of love. I say, this is due to the many psychology-related prejudices prevalent in their minds. We need to ask ourselves what the major mode of exercitation of any activity in human beings, and none can doubt the role of love in epistemology. The physical foundations of love too are commonly to be shared with the foundations of other aspects of physical existence.
Such tending by the person is mediated within the person by the connotative universals. Their expression is always in terms of symbols in various languages. These are called denotative universals. Connotative universals get concatenated in the mind in relation to their respective brain elements and form thoughts and feelings. Their expression in language is by the concatenation of denotative universals and get formulated in languages as theories and their parts.
To put in gist the latter part of “2. The Epistemology of Physics”, I suggest that the ontological, connotative, and denotative universals and the love of human agents to these and the very existent processual entities are what facilitate knowledge. The psychological question as to what happens when one has no love does not have any consequence here, because psychology differentiates between love and non-love in terms of certain presumed expressions of love and non-love.
In the case of the natural course of life of humans, the choice is not between love and non-love, but instead, between increasing or decreasing love. We do not speak here of loving other human beings as a matter of ethical action. Instead, the point is that of the natural love that humans have for everything including for sensing, feeling, knowing, etc.
One might wonder here why I did not discuss mathematics as an epistemologically valid tool of physics and other sciences. I have already dealt with this aspect in many other discussion texts in ResearchGate, and hence do not expatiate on it here.
3. The Ontology behind Physics
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
There have arisen various schools of theories, mainly from within the physics community, theorizing elaborately concerning the ontological foundations of physics. Not till the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century have these notions been clear enough. Two major and common ways of approaching the foundations have been the following:
(1) Physical experiments and theories based on the notions of space, time, matter-energy, and causality. (2) Physical experiments and theories based on the four laws of conservation, namely, those of matter, energy, momentum, and charge. There may be other variations of the foundations, e.g., some include mass in the list. I believe that all such variations are based mostly on the two sets above.
The first set does not seem to be based on anything else from the viewpoints available in the long tradition of classification and the epistemic categories of space and time. The question of deriving one from the others or a few from the others within the list has not occurred. This is the foremost disadvantage of these categories.
But the second list integrates within each category the measuremental aspect of physical (scientific) activity. Interestingly, hence, the second set used to be reduced to symmetries (Hermann Weyl and others). But note that symmetries are measuremental and hence epistemic in nature. A symmetry is not a physical-ontological affair but instead the result of some epistemic operations upon already existent natural processes.
But here the existence of processes is taken for granted, and not included in the categories. That is, the nature of physical processes is not sufficiently taken notice of. This does not mean that the nature of physical processes is left aside from physics. Instead, it is not included in the categories.
Measurements are based on the epistemic concepts of space and time. A symmetry is never the result of merely one epistemic operation. A few measurements together constitute and result in any one sort of symmetry. Hence, the compositional nature of concepts assigned the categorial character in the four conservational categories renders conservational categories into less essential and less grounded for physics.
Moreover, in the above systems, causality is considered (1) either as an addition to the categories behind physical processes and the study of physical processes, (2) or as a notion being brought up in terms of the measuremental concepts of space and time, because until today a universally acceptable manner of defining causality in terms of any other primitive notions has not existed.
Hence, causality as an additional category not based on any other categories and symmetries based merely on composed measurements and not on any other fundamental categories cannot be the foundation for the study of the physical nature of existent processes. The latter needs physical-ontological Categories and these Categories should give rise to the basic notions of physics without reference to ad hoc positing of various basic notions as the foundations of physics.
Moreover, measurement systems like MKS, CGS, and SI are ipso facto mere epistemic systems. They are conventions of measurements, on which the nature of physical processes is based; and conventions of measurements are not based on the most general nature of existence of physical processes. This necessitates finding what underlies both measuremental systems and the resultant symmetries.
In the case of physics and the natural sciences as the general case, the epistemically oriented operations are for the most part measuremental. In the case of many other sciences – say, (1) some applied sciences like medicine, engineering, architecture, etc., (2) some of the human sciences, and (3) especially the fine arts, music, literature, etc. – the status of measurements is different. Exact measurements increasingly take a back seat in these three general types of sciences, although measurements exist in all of them in a more or less evident fashion.
But in the fine arts, music, literature, etc. we have sensation, experiential quality, feelings, etc. taking prominence over measurements. These procedures too are epistemically oriented procedures in such sciences, which scientists (and of course, all of us) often look down upon as sciences that obtain values calculated as less than those that the humanities obtain. Despite this fact, they too are sciences in some sense, since measurement is ubiquitously present in them at least as a minor procedure in comparison with the physical sciences and mathematics. I would hold even that the applied sciences, although active more often with procedural measurements, indulge also a lot of sensation, experiential quality, feelings, etc. in the manner of epistemic qualities.
3.2. Critique of Traditional Physical Categories
Some important details to be noticed in the above-mentioned two major traditional school systems of physical categories are the following:
(1) Firstly, space and time are not existents or ontological attributes of existents. As is clear from above, they are the measurementally epistemic and cognitive aspects of physical existents.
(2) Secondly, matter-energy can be taken as existents provided one does not tend to take the abstract Aristotelian-Thomistic meaning of matter (as the abstract raw material which, when exemplified, is always a material object, although such a raw material is never to be found anywhere) and energy (as an abstract action-at-a-distance with no material counterpart) in order to explain material objects.
(3) Thirdly, it is a false procedure in physics, cosmology and derived physical sciences to accept the measuremental notion of energy and material objects as just the number respectively of the energy emissions and material chunks measured based on measurement conventions (e.g., quanta). Instead, the notion of energy as existent propagation from existent matter, measurable in various conventional ways, is much more tenable.
(4) On the other hand, fourthly, the laws of conservation are not simple attributes of any existent. A detailed meaning-analysis of physicists’ claims may show that many of them have taken the conservation laws as the most fundamental attributes / qualities of theories. But they are principles formulated sententially out of a few notions and verbs, and hence rendered as principles composed of many other simple attributes which then are concatenated using verbal connective notions. I call as universals the simple attributes constituting the sentential principles of symmetries.
Even the verbal notions may be set in the qualitative language and rendered universal attributes. This is because both names and verbs belong to the processes that existents are and define existents as ongoing processes. Universals are the basic contents of all basic principles, definitions, etc. But what we need as most basic sources of physics are physical-ontological Categories that work as the fundamental notions of all universals.
Merely any one or some universals cannot suffice at the foundations of physics. They need to be the direct implications of the most fundamental of all notions, namely, To Be / To Exist. But why should physics follow this manner of thinking? None insists upon this on the physical praxis of a physicist. But the suggestion is that the physicist too deals with existing physical processes, and also the philosopher of physics deals with existent stuff, and not non-existent stuff. Why then should physicists follow those Categories that physical-ontologically justify their work? For the above reasons, I follow the way of searching for the universals of all existents in their equally nominal and verbal aspect, namely, the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Physics cannot be done in a well-justified manner without possibly best-grounded universals that go beyond the above-mentioned two groups of physical-ontologically insufficiently grounded, arbitrarily introduced, and haphazardly variegated categories which are not derivable from the most fundamental ones.
The most basic grounding should always be from the To Be of Reality-in-total, and such Categories are absolutely lacking in physics even today – a fact that I have become more and more aware of while discussing matters physical and cosmological on ResearchGate as I attempted to suggest what I found to be the possibly most basic Categories of all science and philosophy.
Some may suggest that the surest possible physical (not physical-ontological) grounding that has been provided by some in the past in terms of defining time, space, mass, and energy measurementally are sufficient for physics, and perhaps it is good to add causality, but we are not sure whether everything is fully causal – and that none needs to intrude into the foundations of physics from other disciplines.
I argue that all such grounds are insufficient due to their classificational and measuremental nature, as mentioned above. Secondly, they are insufficient for physics because they are exclusively and merely from within the ambit of physics. This does not ground physics. Moreover, I shall show that Universal Causality is ubiquitous if a physical existent should exist at all, i.e., from the concept of existence is Universal Causality to be derived in a pre-scientifically ontological manner, and that the instruments of such derivation are themselves the primary Categories of physics.
The two sets of physical categories mentioned above, due to their classificational and measuremental nature, are not derivable from the To Be of all existents. To put the argument in gist, the definitions of all the said merely physical categories use simple universals as ingredients; these ingredients are not final enough; there are two most final ontological universals; and hence, the highest ontological universals should also be at the foundations of physics along with existent matter-energy, so that the classifications and measurements of existent matter-energy within physics be conceptually possible; and further, these two Categories are the very essence of Universal Causality too.
3.3. Grounded Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
Grounding can be of various levels and grades. I speak of grounding all sorts of concepts, procedure principles, procedure methods, and theories in any system of thought and science. It is unnecessary in this context to discuss the grounding of highly derivative concepts that occur much later in theories than those that appear while founding them with best-grounded foundations. I go directly to the case of what should be called the most Categorial concepts behind physics, on which physics is grounded.
These Categorial concepts cannot be merely from within physics but should be directly related to and facilitating physics in as many of its aspects as possible. The success of foundational Categories consists in that they serve to ground as many aspects as possible of the particular science or system. Concepts strictly and exclusively physical or generally scientific cannot be as useful as notions from beyond in order to serve as Categories. Evidently, this is because no scientific discipline or system can be grounded on itself and hence on its own concepts. This is clearly also part of the epistemological and ontological implications of the work of Godel.
Grounded ontological Categories are such that they are inevitably and exhaustively grounded in the To Be of Reality-in-total as the only exhaustive implications of To Be. All other Categories, as far as possible, must be derivative of the most primary Categories. The more the number of Categories within the Categorial system that do not derive from the primary Categories the worse for the self-evidence of the science or system within it.
Grounding is exhaustive in the sense that the Categories that ground all physics need nothing else to be a concept than the To Be of Reality-in-total. To Be is the source of the Categories. It happens to be that there are two such Categories that are inevitably and exhaustively grounded. I call them Extension and Change. Clarifications of their meaning, ontological significance, and epistemological and physical implications and follow.
As I said, preferably grounding must be on the surest notion of all, which is existence. I prefer to term it To Be. As far as thought, feeling, and sensation are concerned, To Be is a notion in al of them. But principally To Be must belong to the whole of Reality, and not to a few things. If anything and/or all processes of Reality are existent, then what exist are the parts of existent Reality. The first minimum guarantee hereof should be that existence should be non-vacuous. Non-vacuous signifies that each possesses or contains whatever is possible within its existence in the given measurementally spatio-temporal context (which, as shall soon be clear, belong ontologically to the Extension-Change-wise existence of things).
3.4. Definitions of Universals, Extension-Change, Causality, and Unit Process
Even the minimum realism in thought, feeling, and sensation has for its principal conditions (1) the ontological primacy of universal qualities / natures that belong to groups of entities (processes), where the groups are also called natural kinds in the analytic tradition, and then (2) the ultimate simplicity and indivisibility of the universal characteristics that pertain to all existents. Contrary to the infinite divisibility of existent matter-energy, universals as the characteristics of existent matter-energy conglomerations (of togethernesses of unit Processes) are ontologically ideal universals, and hence indivisible. These universals are ideal not because of our idealisation of the characteristics, but instead because they are the general characteristics of the natural kinds to which each existent belongs. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that ontological universals are not our idealizations.
The properties of things are built out of these simple ontological universals in the natural kinds. The vague reflections of simple ontological universals within our minds are conceptually connotative universals, which are conceptual ideals. And their linguistic reflections in minds and all kinds of symbolic instruments are denotative universals.
Connotative and denotative universals are epistemological universals, formed epistemically from the little contact that minds have with the phenomena (“showings-themselves”) from some layers of processual objects from out there. The properties of existent processual things (matter-energy particulars) are vaguely reflected in minds and languages through the connotative and denotative instrumentalization of concepts in order to reflect the things via phenomena in terms of the data created by minds out of them. Any theory that permits ontological primacy to epistemological universals is one of a range of theories yielding primacy to the perceiving mind over the perceived objects. This is anathema in any scientific or philosophical science, because things are not vacua.
Non-vacuous existence implies that existents are extended. This is one of the most important characteristics of existents. Extension implies having parts, compositionality. Any extended existent’s parts impart impact to some others. This is Change. Only extended existents can exert impacts on any other. As a result, the object that exerts impact gets in itself some impact within, which is nothing but the proof that an impact by one extended part implies movements and impact formation by its parts too, as a result of the overall impact formation in question which contains the inner parts’ impact formation within. The latter need not always have its effects merely within the parts but instead also outwards.
Extension and Change are the highest, deepest, and most general characteristics of all existents. Interestingly, existence in Extension-Change is itself the process that we have so far named causation. Hence, anything non-vacuously existent has Extension and Change not separately but together. This is the meaning of Universal Causality. Physics cannot dispense with this pre-scientific universal Law. No more shall quantum physicists or scientists from other disciplines tell us that quantum physics has some sort of non-causality within! Any causal unit of existents in which the causal part and the effect part may be termed a process. Processuality is yet another important characteristic of existents, but we formulate it as Process, which represents the matter-energy units that there can be.
By this have clearly been set up three physical-ontological Categories of physics: Extension, Change, Causality, and Process. Space and time are merely epistemic categories. They cannot characterize existent processes. Ontological universals, as the characteristics of existent matter-energy conglomerations, are of togethernesses of unit Processes. Ontological universals are therefore ontologically ideal universals belonging (pertaining) to some natural kinds. The Categories as ontological universals belong to Reality-in-total, and not merely some natural kinds.
3.5. Definition of the Ontology behind Physics
In the definition of the ontology of physics, therefore, I shall posit the necessity of the highest possible grounds that I find as fundamental for physics and philosophy alike. The reason for these Categories’ being meant more or less also for philosophy is that both philosophy and physics have physical existents in common as their object range; and philosophy additionally has the pure universals of physics within the ambit of study. Hence, well-grounded physical foundations cannot do without the most suitable among these universals as its fundamental Categories, selected from among the universals forming part of the objects of philosophy.
Although many physicists and mathematicians may find the following definition queer due to their pragmatic and near-sighted concept of physics (where physical objects, and not their universals / qualities, are part of their object range) in a non-grounded manner, I define here ontology for use in physics with the purpose of elaboration of the various aspects brought forward in the definition.
The Ontology behind physics is (1) the rationally consequent science of the totality of physical existents, their parts, and their sine qua nons, namely, the pure universals as pertinents of existents and their parts, (2) prioritized as objects in terms of the To Be (Greek, Einai) of Reality-in-total and only thereafter in terms of the to be (einai) of its parts (reality-in-particular), (3) serving to achieve ever better measuremental approximations of the cosmos and its part-systems (4) in terms of the epistemological ideal of Reality-in-total, namely, the theoretically highest possible notion of Reality-in-general, (5) grounded in the unique and exhaustive implications of To Be, namely, Extension and Change, (6) in properly physical activities that let Reality and realities be measured in term of measuremental and classificational categories that facilitate both experiments and theories equally well.
I have introduced here the highest Ideals of philosophical and scientific thinking, namely, To Be, Reality-in-total, and Reality-in-general. These are not explained here well enough. I have treated them with detailed justifications in my books: Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, Frankfurt, 2015, and Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin.
3.6. The Curse of Mathematical / Theoretical Physics
The Background: The ultimate physical and cosmological significance of the Categories of Extension (“being extended / having parts” while in existence) and Change (“extended existents causing impacts on others and also on themselves”) must be seen in the context of warding off quantum-physical, cosmological, statistical, and other sorts of inexplicable and bizarre existence-related aberrations resulting from theories like those of (1) parallel universes, (2) extra dimensions, (3) vacuous universes, (4) total mutual disconnection of universes, (5) infinite number of positive-content physical universes taking origin like extra-fitted balloons from “technically / mathematically zero-valued” quantum vacua or quantum-vacuum universes without any iota of causal agency (because quantum vacua are merely of near-zero zero statistical expectations), (6) the presumed existence of space, time, and spacetime like physical things in mathematical fields, (7) the theoretical writing-off of time alone as unreal and unnecessary, etc.
This sort of aberrations renders some theories and their related concepts into theories about absolutely non-existent objects (in some analytic-logical philosophies, called also as “counterfactual possible worlds”) and into substitute theoretical entities that serve only to explain procedures and not to explain existent processes. These serve for physicists and cosmologists to temporarily save their face by use of irrational adherence to methods of maintenance of mere uncertainties in mathematical physics.
The Curse of Theoretical Physics: I mentioned these above in order to speak of the curse of advanced mathematical physics. This curse is the confusion between (1) physical existents, (2) non-existent theoretical constructs, (3) theories representing small or large theoretical processes required only for theory, and (4) the lack of criteria of creating theories for describing existent processes with recourse to vacuous, non-existent, virtual objects and processes, but without turning these objects and processes into existent objects lacking the criteria of existence.
Positing ad hoc explanatory theories to clarify certain theoretical inaptitudes of notions or deviations in arguments is assuredly necessary for the progress of science. But these are sooner to be overwhelmed (not to be substituted) by more adequate and existentially non-aberrational unobservables and/or theoretical terms. As of now, physics, astrophysics, and cosmology are full of theoretical entities that cannot ever be proved to be existent unobservables. This is the curse of physics today – a graver problem today than previously.
3.7. Implications of Pragmatism and Idealism in Physics
For argument’s sake, if an observer is in absolute inertia / standstill with respect to everything else in the universe, he could possess high truth-probability concerning truths about spatiotemporally closest processes. But the fact is that ourselves, our senses, our instruments, and our environments are in motion, which is one of the ingredients of instances of actualization of Change. Hence, our experimental and consequently our theoretical visualization of physical processes in our environment is comparable to our direct vision from a running train.
What should be most closely real to us is our own motion as such and not the motions and changes within or outside. Nearby objects will then be most difficult to observe because their direction of motion will always be directly comparable to our own merely as different from ours. In fact, their immediacy to us and our motion as such would only be momentary. This is a fact that pragmatism, scientism, empiricism, experimentalism, etc. forget.
Distant objects will be relatively clearer due to the part played by the low proportionality between the distances and our own motion as such. This state of affairs may be conceived as follows. If the generalities of the objects at theoretical and empirical vision are clearly in view in terms of their general foundations, our vision will be more truth-probable than when (as in the case of close vision) the comparative differences of motions is high due to (1) the momentariness of exposure obtained between ourselves and the nearest objects, and (2) the lack of general vision between the two, that should normally have been facilitated by the general Categories that apply in cases of both near vision and distant vision.
To render the Categories applicable to processes both distant and near in spacetime, the only direct feasible manner of approach is to first discover the Categories that apply to near and distant visions and objects equally well, and then put them to use at least both epistemologically and ontologically and of course in other ways.
3.8. General Theories of the Evolutionary Stuff of Reality-in-total
In order to make possible a clear discussion of the necessity of physical-ontological Categories in physical and other sciences, I name some general forms of theories of the evolutionary stuff of Reality-in-total.
(1) There is a range of theories assigning existence only to minds or to the Divine as mind, the latter categorized as the fully mental being and the former partaking in the mentality of the latter.
(2) Yet another group of theories permits existence only to concepts / the conceptual, in contradistinction from minds and the Divine. This group, I believe, is a direction that existed all through the millennia and tried again and again to present themselves in various forms, at times very much mixed up with the first group so that the distinctions have become extremely difficult to understand.
(3) The third type permits in existence only physical entities as we normally conceptualize. Theories of this group are various, including physicalism, scientism, reductionism, etc. couched in their various theoretical shades.
The confusion between the first two types attests to the false identification of consciousness / mind with the conceptual / mental and the misidentification of all or any of existents with the Divine. This sort of ontological identification of the physical with the mental / spiritual and this with the divine is called pantheism. The identification may even be evolutionary. But in this case it becomes a system that accepts also the material world, but as an initial phase.
Theories which, however, find that at least a good portion of what are sensed is the physical world, permit the existence of matter-energy as part of Reality-in-total. Those that take only matter-energy as existent hold either the one or the other of the following:
(1) They reduce consciousness into matter-energy, do not grant any divine nature to consciousness, and do not find these two as originating from the Divine.
(2) They find matter-energy as the physical existent, take consciousness as emergent out of matter-energy without losing their basic physical status, and permit the origin of matter-energy and/or consciousness as unique in themselves but as created or emergent products originating from the agency of the Divine. These are mentioned here with the purpose only of a clear differentiation serving not to dismiss the existence of matter-energy.
Without entering upon a theoretical discernment over the above theoretical varieties of ontology, I attempt to concentrate on the existence conditions necessitated by ordinary science and advanced mathematical physics and cosmology, which deal primarily with physical existents. I shall show in the rudiments of a physical ontology here below the relevance of (1) the most universal Categories for all existents – i.e., physical processes, consciousnesses of all grades, and, if there is, also the Divine, which then should be an infinitely active and infinitely extended bodiliness – and (2) the reflections, of the pertinent ontological universals of existents within minds and through symbolic languages. (Please note here that I did not insist on the existence of the Divine, but only suggested how it would be if it existed.)
It is also possible to show certain cases of the ontology of Reality-in-total if minds and the Divine are absolutely distinct cases. See my discussions:
3.9. The Mode of Action of Existence and of Knowledge
Under the section “2. The Epistemology of Physics”, I have brought into discussion the natural tendency of humans to love not merely what is present in the immediate vicinity but also the distant natural kinds (groups of gross processual entities that are not directly available for experiments due to their distances), the less evident natural kinds (existing unobservables and unobservables that are not yet proved to exist), and the abstract / pertinent kinds (universals) of all that exist. Among these objects of love are to be found also the totality of all existents and the most general pertinents of Reality-in-total.
It is unacceptable that someone here tells me that none loves such objects. I agree that all sorts of psychologically direct perception of love are almost absent herein. But the tending to them intellectually, through feelings, and through sensations, wherever whichever is possible, is already present in all of us. It IS love, too.
Any existent can tend to existents, their pertinents, and to some extent also to the mental and linguistic reflections of both these. The tending and love for the reflections of both the first two can only transpire through the tending to and love for the first two. The tending in physical processes is not love. But at least in human beings it takes the shape of love. I think this aspect must gain momentum in epistemology. In other philosophical disciplines it should be acceptable in a slightly different manner.
This is due to the primacy of the ontological (in respect of existence, existents, and their pertinents in existent systems) as against the epistemic (which is a vague and veiled conscious reflection of the former in their existent systems). The epistemic is merely the description of how knowledge takes place and should take place with the help of finite amounts of data input derived from a few layers of the phenomena issuing from a few layers of the reality in question.
Epistemology is the study of truth-occurrences, and not directly of truth derivation methods nor directly of their existence. But it presupposes these. This is also why I hold that physical ontology is the existential foundation of epistemology. But physical ontology must itself be grounded upon the very notion of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
If primacy of existence can be accorded to the ontological, then whatever exists in this world may primarily be termed physical in existence (not physical in the sense of being the object of the science of physics, because primacy is to existence, not to any discipline.
Relevant answer
Answer
So far you did not tell us how you proved all these!
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
57 answers
A GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS
Beyond the Two Millennia
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.
IS CAUSALITY A SCIENTIFIC OR PRE-SCIENTIFIC LAW?
§§-- Without beings in existence (To Be), there is no science “on them”. Existence is not vacuous. Non-vacuous existents are in Extension (Existence-Category 1), i.e., they have parts, they are composed.
§§-- Both parts and wholes can interact. They cause impacts on a finite number of other existents and on themselves: Change (Existence-Category 2). Change involves motion, but is not motion. Parallel to these two physical-ontological Categories, no other characteristic is thinkable. Hence, Extension and Change ꞊ Exhaustive implications of To Be of Reality-in-total the highest natural kind.
§§-- If Extended+Changing (with parts and with impact formation) entities exist, this is causal existence. Every existent is such. Hence: Universal Causality...! Extension, Change, and Causality are pre-scientific Laws. Now, no Quantum Physicist can tell us that some (observable) processes are causal and the others (partial observables [unobservables] and non-observables) are merely statistically causal or non-causal…!
§§-- Smaller natural kinds (ordered and/or organized parts of Reality-in-total) also have characteristics. These are ontological universals (modes of being of processes). They are primarily in the natural kinds, and only thus in the token enities in the natural kind.
§§-- Space ꞊ measure of extension. Time ꞊ measure of change. These are epistemic concepts. Epistemic space-time cannot curve as physicists make us believe. Extension-Change-wise existent matter-energy conglomerations curve.
Centuries of violent and extremist discussions have taken place as to a Yes or No or Yes-and-No to causality in existent beings, namely, Reality-in-total. In the fray have been mainly philosophy, and only then physics. This state has changed after the genesis of quantum physics. In the above, I have “proved” in a very simple manner that Universal Causality is a pre-scientific Law.
The purely epistemic version of causality can only be a sort of concept and not be that of what happens in the world. It gets formulated due to the sense-related, conceptual, and logical conclusion towards a correlation of some sort between two or more events, but without recourse to the events’ existence.
Any further justification of the epistemological conclusion of causality without involving the purely physical-ontological aspect of existence of the event at question in total and its antecedent and consequent part-events may even be taken as an explanation of the experience of correlation. Historical examples abound, and Hume’s is the most famous example.
But this is not the case if the purely physical-ontological aspect of existence of the event at question in total and its antecedent and consequent part-events may be accepted as the conditio sine qua non of the sensation, conceptualization, and logical argument. Hence the fully physical-ontological status of causality.
Traditionally, causality is the relation between the antecedent and the consequent part-events of the one event at issue. And causation is the act of a cause-event in effecting an effect-event. This is the age-old manner of conceiving the ontology of causality. The former, the epistemic and the explanatory, have been the trend during most of the 20thcentury history of philosophical and physical-philosophical inquiry on causality.
But what I have proposed in the various parts of my five published books is a whole new manner of theorizing Universal Causality. I hope to finally suggest that this is also a game-changer in the history of the concept of causality.
Relevant answer
Answer
I can understand a "physical-ontological aspect of existence" by the existence of matter in the moment of the observation. But there is the emergence of virtual particles in the empty cosmos according to the unsharpness principle of Heisenberg. These particles are at first only hypothetical and dissolve after a certain time, by the mutual annihilation. They did not exist quasi. But if both particles exist longer than the unsharpness relation allows, by external influences, they become real particles. This shows how unsharp the borders of the "physical ontology" are. Without clear limits.
With the time it is also not so simple. Yes, it is bound to movement.
Your quote: "Change involves motion, but is not motion".
A stone may lie in a well-defined place of the subsoil without movement, but it will change with its form over time, outside by processes of decay (abrasion) and inside by mineral changes. These are very slow processes of movement. There is a very slow real movement of the change of the inside with effect on the outside.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
55 answers
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL CATEGORIES
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Traditional Physical Categories
There have arisen various schools of theories, mainly from within the physics community, theorizing elaborately concerning the ontological foundations of physics. Not till the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century have these notions been clear enough. Two major and common ways of approaching the foundations have been the following:
(1) Physical experiments and theories based on the notions of space, time, matter-energy, and causality. (2) Physical experiments and theories based on the four laws of conservation, namely, those of matter, energy, momentum, and charge. There may be other variations of the foundations, e.g., some include mass in the list. I believe that all such variations are based mostly on the two sets above.
The first set does not seem to be based on anything else from the viewpoints available in the long tradition of classification and the epistemic categories of space and time. The question of deriving one from the others or a few from the others within the list has not occurred. This is the foremost disadvantage of these categories.
But the second list integrates within each category the measuremental aspect of physical (scientific) activity. Interestingly, hence, the second set used to be reduced to symmetries (Hermann Weyl and others). But note that symmetries are measuremental and hence epistemic in nature. A symmetry is not a physical-ontological affair but instead the result of some epistemic operations upon already existent natural processes.
But here the existence of processes is taken for granted, and not included in the categories. That is, the nature of physical processes is not sufficiently taken notice of. This does not mean that the nature of physical processes is left aside from physics. Instead, it is not included in the categories.
Measurements are based on the epistemic concepts of space and time. A symmetry is never the result of merely one epistemic operation. A few measurements together constitute and result in any one sort of symmetry. Hence, the compositional nature of concepts assigned the categorial character in the four conservational categories renders conservational categories into less essential and less grounded for physics.
Moreover, in the above systems, causality is considered (1) either as an addition to the categories behind physical processes and the study of physical processes, (2) or as a notion being brought up in terms of the measuremental concepts of space and time, because until today a universally acceptable manner of defining causality in terms of any other primitive notions has not existed.
Hence, causality as an additional category not based on any other categories and symmetries based merely on composed measurements and not on any other fundamental categories cannot be the foundation for the study of the physical nature of existent processes. The latter needs physical-ontological Categories and these Categories should give rise to the basic notions of physics without reference to ad hoc positing of various basic notions as the foundations of physics.
Moreover, measurement systems like MKS, CGS, and SI are ipso facto mere epistemic systems. They are conventions of measurements, on which the nature of physical processes is based; and conventions of measurements are not based on the most general nature of existence of physical processes. This necessitates finding what underlies both measuremental systems and the resultant symmetries.
In the case of physics and the natural sciences as the general case, the epistemically oriented operations are for the most part measuremental. In the case of many other sciences – say, (1) some applied sciences like medicine, engineering, architecture, etc., (2) some of the human sciences, and (3) especially the fine arts, music, literature, etc. – the status of measurements is different. Exact measurements increasingly take a back seat in these three general types of sciences, although measurements exist in all of them in a more or less evident fashion.
But in the fine arts, music, literature, etc. we have sensation, experiential quality, feelings, etc. taking prominence over measurements. These procedures too are epistemically oriented procedures in such sciences, which scientists (and of course, all of us) often look down upon as sciences that obtain values calculated as less than those that the humanities obtain. Despite this fact, they too are sciences in some sense, since measurement is ubiquitously present in them at least as a minor procedure in comparison with the physical sciences and mathematics. I would hold even that the applied sciences, although active more often with procedural measurements, indulge also a lot of sensation, experiential quality, feelings, etc. in the manner of epistemic qualities.
2. Critique of Traditional Physical Categories
Some important details to be noticed in the above-mentioned two major traditional school systems of physical categories are the following:
(1) Firstly, space and time are not existents or ontological attributes of existents. As is clear from above, they are the measurementally epistemic and cognitive aspects of physical existents.
(2) Secondly, matter-energy can be taken as existents provided one does not tend to take the abstract Aristotelian-Thomistic meaning of matter (as the abstract raw material which, when exemplified, is always a material object, although such a raw material is never to be found anywhere) and energy (as an abstract action-at-a-distance with no material counterpart) in order to explain material objects.
(3) Thirdly, it is a false procedure in physics, cosmology and derived physical sciences to accept the measuremental notion of energy and material objects as just the number respectively of the energy emissions and material chunks measured based on measurement conventions (e.g., quanta). Instead, the notion of energy as existent propagation from existent matter, measurable in various conventional ways, is much more tenable.
(4) On the other hand, fourthly, the laws of conservation are not simple attributes of any existent. A detailed meaning-analysis of physicists’ claims may show that many of them have taken the conservation laws as the most fundamental attributes / qualities of theories. But they are principles formulated sententially out of a few notions and verbs, and hence rendered as principles composed of many other simple attributes which then are concatenated using verbal connective notions. I call as universals the simple attributes constituting the sentential principles of symmetries.
Even the verbal notions may be set in the qualitative language and rendered universal attributes. This is because both names and verbs belong to the processes that existents are and define existents as ongoing processes. Universals are the basic contents of all basic principles, definitions, etc. But what we need as most basic sources of physics are physical-ontological Categories that work as the fundamental notions of all universals.
Merely any one or some universals cannot suffice at the foundations of physics. They need to be the direct implications of the most fundamental of all notions, namely, To Be / To Exist. But why should physics follow this manner of thinking? None insists upon this on the physical praxis of a physicist. But the suggestion is that the physicist too deals with existing physical processes, and also the philosopher of physics deals with existent stuff, and not non-existent stuff. Why then should physicists follow those Categories that physical-ontologically justify their work? For the above reasons, I follow the way of searching for the universals of all existents in their equally nominal and verbal aspect, namely, the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Physics cannot be done in a well-justified manner without possibly best-grounded universals that go beyond the above-mentioned two groups of physical-ontologically insufficiently grounded, arbitrarily introduced, and haphazardly variegated categories which are not derivable from the most fundamental ones. The most basic grounding should always be from the To Be of Reality-in-total, and such Categories are absolutely lacking in physics even today – a fact that I have become more and more aware of while discussing matters physical and cosmological on ResearchGate as I attempted to suggest what I found to be the possibly most basic Categories of all science and philosophy.
Some may suggest that the surest possible physical (not physical-ontological) grounding that has been provided by some in the past in terms of defining time, space, mass, and energy measurementally are sufficient for physics, and perhaps it is good to add causality, but we are not sure whether everything is fully causal – and that none needs to intrude into the foundations of physics from other disciplines.
I argue that all such grounds are insufficient due to their classificational and measuremental nature, as mentioned above. Secondly, they are insufficient for physics because they are exclusively and merely from within the ambit of physics. This does not ground physics. Moreover, I shall show that Universal Causality is ubiquitous if a physical existent should exist at all, i.e., from the concept of existence is Universal Causality to be derived in a pre-scientifically ontological manner, and that the instruments of such derivation are themselves the primary Categories of physics.
The two sets of physical categories mentioned above, due to their classificational and measuremental nature, are not derivable from the To Be of all existents. To put the argument in gist, the definitions of all the said merely physical categories use simple universals as ingredients; these ingredients are not final enough; there are two most final ontological universals; and hence, the highest ontological universals should also be at the foundations of physics along with existent matter-energy, so that the classifications and measurements of existent matter-energy within physics be conceptually possible; and further, these two Categories are the very essence of Universal Causality too.
Relevant answer
Answer
Raphael Neelamkavil
I can well understand that physicists are also philosophers. Two philosophers of modern times, whom I especially respect, are the physicist Georg Picht with his work "Of Time" and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker with "Time and Knowledge".
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
157 answers
ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA HAVE EXTENSION AND CHANGE WITHIN.
DO THEY ALSO GRAVITATE? AND DO THE GRAVITONS GRAVITATE OR REPEL?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. MODES OF EXISTENCE OF ENERGY-CARRIER EXISTENTS
Without the presence of existent gravitational propagation wavicles / particles, nothing physical can hold together. Additionally, there are electro-magnetic and other non-gravitational propagation wavicles / particles. Both are carriers of energy. Thus, there can be two kinds of force-carrier existents (energy wavicles / particles) which are forms of physical matter processes and hence irreducibly are matter:
(1) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes and pull other objects a step backwards, thus attracting the object gradually into the graviton-issuing object, and
(2) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes, do not pull other objects to the issuing object, and thus give a portion of themselves off to other objects.
Do these gravitational and non-gravitational (electromagnetic and other) wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist and how they may exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are:
(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and
(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.
In short, any matter particle and any force-carrier wavicle can exist only Extension-Change-wise. Whether they really exist is clear enough: if they do not exist, then the matter particles that issue force-carrier existents (wavicles) too need not exist, since force-carrier wavicles are just another (relativistically, and not absolutistically, source-independent) form of existence of mater particles.
An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!
This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?
2. ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA
If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.
Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.
If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.
Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.
But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.
In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).
3. CAUSAL NATURE OF ALL WAVICLES
The Extension-Change kind of existence is what we call Causation, and therefore, every existent is a causal Process in all parts. This is nothing but the Universal Law of Causality. That is, no more do we need to prove causation scientifically. This Law is a pre-scientific and hence physical-ontological Law, meant also for biological existents.
Hence, no quantum physics, statistical physics, or quantum cosmology can now declare that certain processes in nature are non-causal or acausal, after having admitted that these processes are in existence!
That is, existents at any level of formation are fully physical, possess at least a minimum of causal connection with others in its environment, are not merely virtual (nor fully modular / non-local / non-emergent / self-emergent / sui generis in a totally isolated manner). Therefore, any existent must have causal connections with its finitely reachable environment and within its inner parts.
4. IF IN EXTENSION-CHANGE, WHY THEN IN SPACE-TIME?
Physical-ontologically real generalities must be about, or pertinent to, existents in groups, i.e., as parts of a type / natural kind. These generalities are not existents, but pure ontological universals in natural kinds. Extension and Change are purely ontological and absolutely basic characteristics of all existents. Hence, I have termed them Categories.
Space and time are just the measurement-based epistemic notions or versions of the more generally physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively. The latter two are ontological generalities of all existent processes, because nothing can exist without these two Categories.
Hence, space and time are not physical-ontological, not real about, not pertinent to, existents. In short, physical science working only on measuremental space-time cannot verify newly discovered energy wavicles and matter particles by use of the physical “properties” they are ascribed to.
The test criteria for the existence of any existent particles will be Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts) and Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within).
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
Answer
Sergey Shevchenko "- if there is some free “field source” for its field being “ statically co-moving” it is necessary for the source at the motion constantly radiate new and new “field” , which has “energy density”/energy, having for that some mystic practically infinite energy – most of the “sources ” in Matter yet now “radiate fields” when constantly move soon 14 billion of years, but remain be the same as were 14 billion of years."
Sorry to say this very clearly, but this statement is wrong.
If the force-field is co-moving with its source, absolutely no action from the source is required to keep the status of the field.
The field is not vanishing at its old place and being re-established at the new location. No it only moves unchanged from the old- to the new location. The field source exactly moves along the same pathway without any exchange between source and field. By thew way, it is sufficient to consider force-fields around elementary particles. All other fields only are overlays of the elementary fields.
Only if the source is accelerated, it sends out some radiation, which moves with the speed of light. This radiation has an aperiodic and a periodic part.
The aperiodic part re-establishes the field to the co-movement of the source after the acceleration has ended. The periodic part fulfills the wave equation in combination with the aperiodic part.
Ignoring the aperiodic part one of the most embarrasing fallacies of standard physics.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
157 answers
SOURCE OF MAJOR FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES:
MATHEMATICS-TO-PHYSICS APPLICATION DISCREPENCY
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,
(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,
(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,
(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,
(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,
(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,
(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),
(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,
(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.
These have given rise to many other cosmological and cosmogenetic theories – mythical, religious, philosophical, physical, and even purely mathematical. It must also be mentioned that the thermodynamic laws created primarily for earth-based physical systems have played a big role in determining the nature of these theories.
The big bang is already a cosmogenetic theory regarding a finite-content universe. The consideration of an INFINITE-CONTENT universe has always been taken as an alternative source of theories to the big bang model. Here, in the absence of conceptual clarity on the physically permissible meaning of infinite content and without attempting such clarity, cosmologists have been accessing the various mathematical tools available to explain the meaning of infinite content. They do not also seem to keep themselves aware that locally possible mathematical definitions of infinity cannot apply to physical localities at all.
The result has been the acceptance of temporal eternality to the infinite-content universe without fixing physically possible varieties of eternality. For example, pre-existence from the past eternity is already an eternality. Continuance from any arbitrary point of time with respect to any cluster of universes is also an eternality. But models of an infinite-content cosmos and even of a finite-content universe have been suggested in the past one century, which never took care of the fact that mathematical infinity of content or action within a finite locality has nothing to do with physical feasibility. This, for example, is the source of the quantum-cosmological quick-fix that a quantum vacuum can go on create new universes.
But due to their obsession with our access to observational details merely from our local big bang universe, and the obsession to keep the big bang universe as an infinite-content universe and as temporally eternal by using the mathematical tools found, a mathematically automatic recycling of the content of the universe was conceived. Here they naturally found it safe to accommodate the big universe, and clearly maintain a sort of eternality for the local big bang universe and its content, without recourse to external creation.
Quantum-cosmological and superstrings-cosmological gimmicks like considering each universe as a membrane and the “space” between them as vacuum have given rise to the consideration that it is these vacua that just create other membranes or at least supplies new matter-energy to the membranes to continue to give rise to other universes. (1) The ubiquitous sensationalized science journalism with rating motivation and (2) the physicists’ and cosmologists’ need to stick to mathematical mystification in the absence of clarity concurring physical feasibility in their infinities – these give fame to the originators of such universes as great and original scientists.
I suggest that the need to justify an eternal recycling of the big bang universe with no energy loss at the fringes of the finite-content big bang universe was fulfilled by cosmologists with the automatically working mathematical tools like the Lambda term and its equivalents. This in my opinion is the origin of the concepts of the almighty versions of dark energy, virtual quantum soup, quantum vacuum, ether, etc., for cosmological applications. Here too the physical feasibility of these concepts by comparing them with the maximal-medial-minimal possibilities of existence of dark energy, virtual quantum soup, quantum vacuum, ether, etc. within the finite-content and infinite-content cosmos, has not been considered. Their almighty versions were required because they had to justify an eternal pre-existence and an eternal future for the universe from a crass physicalist viewpoint, of which most scientists are prey even today. (See: Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP) vs. Panpsychisms and Monisms: Beyond Mind-Body Dualism: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_vs_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms_Beyond_Mind-Body_Dualism)
I believe that the inconsistencies present in the mathematically artificialized notions and in the various cosmogenetic theories in general are due to the blind acceptance of available mathematical tools to explain an infinite-content and eternally existent universe.
What should in fact have been done? We know that physics is not mathematics. In mathematics all sorts of predefined continuities and discretenesses may be created without recourse to solutions as to whether they are sufficiently applicable to be genuinely physics-justifying by reason of the general compulsions of physical existence. I CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER WHERE THE DISCREPENCIES LIE. History is on the side of sanity.
One clear example for the partial incompatibility between physics and mathematics is where the so-called black hole singularity is being mathematized by use of asymptotic approach. I admit that we have only this tool. But we do not have to blindly accept it without setting rationally limiting boundaries between the physics of the black hole and the mathematics applied here. It must be recognized that the definition of any fundamental notion of mathematics is absolute and exact only in the definition, and not in the physical counterparts. (See: Mathematics and Causality: A Systemic Reconciliation, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation)
I shall continue to add material here on the asymptotic approach in cosmology and other similar theoretical and application-level concepts.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Relevant answer
Answer
Please see my research document on functional Grand Unified Theory either attached or on my page. Mathematical tools are an essentially function of Cosmology and the applications of mathematics to physics. This application is most largely and obviously affected by failing to account for the interplay between quantum phenomenon and relativity related phenomenon, and also by no clear-cut ability or route to perform these calculations. By manipulating tensors, and subsequently tying them to mathematical formulas which represent the relation between mathematics and physical processes, quantities and occurrences within quantum physics systems, and then subsequently appropriately setting values for relativity related phenomenon in the form of tensors, operators, and precisely calculated values, one may gain a more precise and enlightening view of Cosmological processes. Failing to account for the interplay between general relativity and quantum phenomenon in any sort of reliable way is a large source of issues in the application of mathematics-to-physics related to Cosmology. Another issue, I believe, is perception. Most scientists are content with either being willfully ignorant of the necessary need to be able to account for quantum phenomenon and relativity related phenomenon at the same time to accurately assess cosmology or they stubbornly stick their feet in the sand and claim they can arrive at fully accurate revelations without an ability to do so. Both are erroneous. Although we can come to A LOT of conclusions about those things without knowing the full quantum/relativity shebang and all it's details, we have no idea what sort of information we could be missing out on, or what false assumptions we could be arriving at. "You vant know what you cant know" The solution to the problem of mathematics-to-physics in Cosmology is most certainly accounting for what I've spoken of here in a reliable way that aligns with known mathematics and physics, but also in developing more advanced equations and discoveries which ties physical processes and quantities to quantum and relativity related phenomenon in a proven and undeniable way. Things like this have been proven by my research. I have found certain forms of complex equations accurately represents laws of physical concepts that shed light on the relation of mathematics to physical things. I am in no way claiming my theory is the only way to do this, I'm just using it as a familiar starting point to speak on this. There are lots of ways to do this without a theory such as mine, but it results in having to perform multiple complex calculations for mathematics, physics, and relativity, parsing, then integrating them separately which is far more time consuming.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
74 answers
THE WHAT, HOW, AND THUSNESS OF REALITY
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.
1. A CAVEAT WITH EXAMPLES OF ABNORMALITIES IN SCIENTISTS AND THINKERS
Merely because I am trained and publish in philosophy and philosophy of physics, I do not denigrate other disciplines or pronounce them as useless. Dispassionately to the conclusions but with passion for research, I have studied also the various Western and Indian philosophies for long.
Does that mean that I accept everything in Indian philosophy and try to tilt all thought towards the Indian? Or, should I try to interpret Indian philosophies in terms of Western categories of thinking or in terms of the philosophy of the sciences? No. But I have the right to develop my own categories and interpret these philosophies and philosophies of science accordingly.
In a similar vein, I believe that the reader will not now pronounce me to be talking nonsense in the following text. If you can read it through, good. Please find out whether there is some reason in it. If you do not feel good, leave it without accusing me of being religiously nonsensical! There exists the talk of the Divine in most of the ancient and modern Indian schools. This possibility is not yet closed forever in Western philosophy and cosmology too.
The sad thing is that there are many Eastern philosophers who become charlatan physicists and attribute quantum physical notions to Vedānta and Buddhism. I know many Westerners who adore much that is Eastern as great supra-rationally rational philosophy. I have always been conscious of studying any philosophy, religion, or science without misjudgments in advance. Hence, I have the right to say the following.
There are many scientists and philosophers who poohpooh Christian philosophical concepts as if they belonged to thought patterns that involve a humanly thinking superhuman God. Read through the works of Wittgenstein, and you will find how silly it is to believe in the notions that he learned as a child in the simplistic religious presentations at the school and perhaps at home and from friends. For example, the ridiculously childish notions and the ex cathedra statements based on such religious notions in his Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief (lecture notes by his students), and, although sparsely, in many other works like Culture and Value, Philosophical Investigations, The Tractatus, etc.
Show me any scientist or philosopher who ridicules philosophy or religion, and I shall show you in his or her writings childish misinterpretations of philosophy and religion.
The worst of them in recent times has been Stephen Hawking. He was religiously derisive of philosophy. He must be questioned on the validity of the philosophy of science and we will obtain other ex cathedra pronouncements as if his reason about philosophy is all that we are permitted to possess.
He even concluded in 1999 that all that physics has to achieve has already been reached theoretically, and hence only some experimental and minor theoretical elaborations remained! If persons of such ideas pronounce statements on philosophy, would these statements be acceptable? Would they not taste some psycho-socio-cultural illnesses in their education and intellectual work?
I say all these not to defend religions with all their beliefs or any one of their beliefs and practices. Instead, I want to explore here a possible religious aspect of all human thought, BEYOND ALL RELIGIONS AND THEIR BELIEFS. Perhaps all religions must be redefined and their belief systems reworked. But I seek whether there can be a dimension of religiosity that is acceptable to all science, philosophy, and religions. To begin with, I do a philosophical reflection in the following. I already know that religion has already been an opium for a majority of humans until recently, and in some nations it continues to be a political opium. Our discussion now is not about that.
2. THE RATIONAL FUNDAMENTALS
We know that the whole Reality is not inside our heads. We can, nevertheless, admit that Reality is whatever it is – this is its Stuff. This is its What and How put together, because we have no way of dealing with its What or How separately – be it in philosophy or science. We are familiar with scientific explanations, say, of electrons, in terms of how they work, how they give rise to fields and photons, etc. These and similar explanations (the how) remain the explanations as to what electrons are (the what).
This is the case also in the various philosophies East and West. We not only cannot have a discourse isolating the What from the How of Reality, but cannot ever isolate these two from each other, although the questions and the notions are distinct.
The existence of Reality as whatever it is, is a different matter. Let us call it its Thusness or To Be or That. But we can only generalize meagerly at the level of To Be. At this level we cannot speak of Reality or the possible existence or not of the Divine. If at all reason should function on the existence or not of the Divine, the only way is to have recourse to the discourse of the What and How of Reality in an intermingled manner.
The Thusnessand the Stuff of all that exist resist being fathomed, however well separately or together the Divine and the universe are conceived as part of Reality-in-total. Why? Just because there is an infinite difference between the Thusnessand the Stuff of Reality-in-total and the thusness and the stuff of mine as a being that fathoms them and formulates the results in statements. The infinity involved here can in fact be only an infinity of infinity of … ad infinitum, since all other forms of infinities do not vouchsafe for the variety of consideration of infinities involved in the said difference.
This fact always brings in contradictions of various kinds in religious and philosophical experiences, utterances, and statements, and even in cosmology the situation is not different. The attempt to fathom their meaning with respect to religion constantly brings contradictions. This is especially so if religion is the expression of the relationship of humans to the Divine, in terms of humans’ experience of Divine’s relationship to humans, because religion deals not merely with love of the Divine and of humans, but also with love of Reality-in-total.
If the Divine is in existence, how to know it, let alone deal with the relationship? How to speak of a relationship with a Divine that we do not even know the existence of? To those who do not try to fathom anything, there are no contradictions at all. To those who know the fact of the infinite difference and tend to be at home with the Thusness and the Stuff of Reality-in-total in rational thought, the spiritual state of experience of contradictions remains intellectually alien or at times merely acceptable.
Now, do these contradictions remain in some way only in this infinite difference, or do they express themselves at all in this difference, or are they clear in the Stuff of Reality-in-total in terms of its What and How? When the logic we use to understand this is to be two-valued at best, this infinite difference can be experienced only at the worst form and that too in contradictions. This in my opinion is the origin of certain religious philosophies that rest on contradictions and nullity.
But as such there need not be contradictions in the very Thusness and the Stuff of Reality-in-total. Here is the origin of the attempted rational explanations in philosophy and science for the Divine.
We do not have a way of defining the infinite difference between the Thusness and the Stuff of Reality-in-total, between these and the thusness and the stuff of our person in terms of non-contradictions. Nor do we have a way of defining our statements of the Thusness and the Stuff of Reality-in-total and of the thusnessand the stuff of human persons as involving contradictions.
By definition, Reality-in-total is just what it is. It is in the very kind of process that it is in, and in the very manner it is. Its Thatness is just the fact that it is, namely its To Be. Statements of its Thusness and its Stuff, therefore, need not at all be expressed in an exact 1-1 form of representation of the two sorts of realities. Note that here ‘realities’ are either the parts within the Stuff of Reality, or one of the most universal or less universal implications of the Thusness or Thatnessor To Be of Reality.
The Thatness of Reality is just the fact that Reality just is what it is. It is merely its Thusness. But the Stuff is both the What and the How of Reality, because, as the sciences show, what something is, is in the final analysis a description of how it functions. Also the vice versa is true. The What and the How of Reality are not equivalents, but are the ways of approach for each other. This shows that the contradictions of ordinary or higher order logic are all at the level of the What and the How of Reality in parts and in the whole.
So, it is both philosophically and scientifically safe to state that the so-called contradictions originate basically from the level of the most infinite differences between the highest transcendental To Be and the highest transcendent Reality-in-total, if statements regarding these can preoccupy themselves with the two aspects of Reality-in-total, namely, the processual parts and the ontological universals that belong to them in general in groups.
When it is attempted to rationally think in terms of the To Be of Reality, it is a very general sort of science that the positive or formal sciences are not used to be involved in. This general science is what I would call the foundation of philosophy. Discourse merely of the To Be of Reality does not exist as more than a few statements. The Thusness of anything is just its Thatness, which is not expressible in a long discourse.
But the possible mode of philosophical discourse can be in terms of the implications of To Be for Reality and the various part-processes and their pertinent ontological universals. This is what I have put forth in some of my papers and discussions, and in some of my books. I call it metaphysics, general ontology, and physical ontology in accordance with the sort of emphasis required.
I have suggested that the exhaustive and unique implications of To Be for all existents are Extension and Change, called Extension-Change-wise existing as Universal Causality, and interpreted many philosophical and (much more so) scientific problems in terms of these.
Although fundamentally the implications of To Be should be such, we still tend to find contradictions and inconsistencies in all discourse, because we take as true all that is known to us in some way as an exact 1-1 representation of the states of affairs, which are just groups of processual entities according to certain ontological universals.
Then all that do not belong to the conclusions of the discourse become for us not true, partially true, and hence at least partially false. In such a logic, there is the anomaly of misplaced concreteness of the fluent values of falsity’s meaning in respect of what is considered as true in ordinary two-valued logic.
So, the direct conclusion from this is that two-valued logic as the method of thought is inadequate for statements of any detail of experiences, utterances, and statements in science, philosophy, and religion – and for that matter exactly in the metaphysics behind all these.
But the question of the existence of the Divine is replete with contradictions and inconsistencies because it is not self-evident at the To Be level of Reality. Instead, I believe that this question must be treated at the level of the What and How of Reality. Naturally, this involves the physical study of the cosmos.
We tend to use two-valued logic in all our thought and discourse. Without it no discourse is possible. But these must be more necessary at the level of the use of the basic principles of two-valued logic, namely, Identity, Non-difference, and Excluded Middle. Hence, we are unable to follow the logic of Reality as such in our reasoning. The logic of Reality is Universal Causality, not Identity, Non-difference, and Excluded Middle. But even here we tend to use these three and related principles of logic at least at the level of the formation of conclusions. This is one source of contradictions and confusions in discourse.
This does not mean that two-valued logic has no real function and should be dispensed. It is relevant at least as far as we can use them on the most fundamental facts of Reality-in-total, e.g., that it exists and is not inexistent, that a certain fundamental or less fundamental conclusion is of relevance or not, etc. To that extent, as regards all other matters in philosophy and religion, we may have to adopt a systemic logic that may tend to relativize the absolute meaning of ‘Identity’, ‘Contradiction’, ‘Excluded Middle’, etc., in which case the statements could look better than just two-valued.
Nevertheless, we have no hope that the human situation of having to use two-valued logic will greatly improve – for we are like an iota of sand, ratiocinating of the possibilities of the ocean and of immersion in it, but refusing to immerse ourselves in it to fathom the ocean until we reach the ocean bed by ourselves and get pushed into the ocean. This might give our consciousnesses the food and method to approach in a better manner Reality in its What and How. Such fathoming too is not of much worth, because the whole What and How of Reality cannot be in my mind. I can at the most enter and speak about it a little: in particular, about a few parts and layers of it and in general about all of them – nevertheless, to a highly limited extent.
Now arise the questions: (1) Does the Divine exist as a part of Reality-in-total? (2) If there is, how to rationalize on it? (3) If there is not, how to understand the cosmos as all that there is to Reality-in-total? Question number (2) may be discussed first, and then number (3). But how and where to begin? Any suggestions on a rational point of departure? Can we find a philosophical and cosmological manner of reasoning which remains absolutely neutral as to a logically two-valued Yes or No to these questions all through and develops a viable method that can finally evaluate the truth probabilities in favour or not of the existence of the Divine?
3. THE COSMOLOGY
Continues.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
For the time being, here further reference is given to:
Relevant answer
Psychological guidance books, also called self-help books, advise us to face the currents of life with determination, positive thinking and optimism. Brown believes that this advice is a guaranteed recipe for frustration and disappointment, and this opinion was inspired by the Greek and Roman philosophers, such as the Stoics and Arthur Schopenhauer, the German thinker in the ninth century. Ten, as well as recent scientific research.
Brown says: "It may be better to realize that the dynamics of our lives are outside our control and condition ourselves to accept them, rather than the illusion that we can control everything and harness it to achieve our goals."
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
7 answers
Would any such transition have occurred in increments locally, or all at once globally?
Is the idea of the transition from one era to the next designed to save an unlikely or incomplete theory?
Are there articles discussing these questions?
Relevant answer
Answer
RS:How does the universe know when to transition from radiation dominated ... to matter dominated ...
Robert Shour, the attached graph shows the energy density of the three components, the evolution of the scale factor depends on the combination of all three so there isn't a sharp transition but a smooth curve between them.
RL: The recent observation by the JWST of galaxies older than 13.79 billion years ...
Richard Lewis, that has not happened, galaxies have been seen at high redshift than previously but they are still about 170 million after the fiducial start, so about 13.62 billion years ago. They are very small as predicted, the surprise is that some are less unstructured than anticipated. There will be galaxies found even earlier than these but probably not before 13.76 billion years ago.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
4 answers
Do such measurements make sense? Do they exist?
Comparing redshift and luminosity distances, if that is a sensible question, may bear on the 4/3 scaling hypothesis as it relates to dark energy.
Relevant answer
Answer
Cepheid and RR Lyrae variables are well known standard candles, and important tools in the cosmological distance ladder. For example, Cepheid variables, which were discovered by Henrietta Swan Leavitt, have the property that their luminosities can be directly inferred by observing their pulsation period, which then allows one to calculate their luminosity distance, given that the observing instrument (telescope) also measures their flux.
However, although nothing stops you from making redshift measurements of relatively nearby objects, this will induce an error in any cosmological parameters inferred from these measurements (such as the luminosity distance), because the peculiar velocities of these objects would be comparable to their Hubble flow, giving you highly inconsistent results. Luminosity distances calculated by interpreting the measured redshifts as cosmological redshifts, become more reliable at larger distances, where the Hubble flow dominates over the peculiar velocities.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
15 answers
From the 1998 book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, at page 274.
Is that consistent with nullius in verba?
Do you agree with Halton Arp?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, it is natural to have suspicion and good to save careless steps.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
237 answers
Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dr Richard Gauthier . I agree with Dr Joseph Badir ,
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
15 answers
Should the scholars at RG and elsewhere be alarmed by the press reports on the influence of the unholy alliance of big money and theology on high-value scientific research, particularly on theoretical physics and cosmology?
The British newspaper, The Guardian report: The MIT-Epstein debacle shows ‘the prostitution of intellectual activity’. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals
BBC reports:
Big Bang and religion mixed in Cern debate
Big Bang: Is there room for God?
More on how Big Money, Beauties, "Big Minds" and Big Science converge:
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Professor Abdul Malek
After a careful search in my records of research related to the Big Bang Cosmology I have realized that all interactions between big money, science and religion mentioned in your question are much more complicated that it is openly admitted. Please consider the following quote describing the seminal contribution of a Belgian scientist who should be credited as a sole creator the Big Bang Theory:
”…Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology.
It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.” “
Source:
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
25 answers
The foundation of physically reality is necessarily very simple and quite probably its structure cannot observed. But recently I came to the conclusion that the signature of this foundation can be observed in all aspects of the universe. All separated items in universe are either modules or modular systems.
Is modular configuration a fundamental characteristic of physical reality?
Relevant answer
Answer
Reflect: what came first, consciousness or the brain? If consciousness, then the brain has been created in consciousness. If the brain? No that is ridiculous!
Primitive humans surely had no idea of the brain, (except to eat it!) but they were just as surely conscious.
The concept of the brain (and all other things) has accumulated through experience, shared by communication, as a phenomenon we now share as "reality."
Today, to understand reality in any other way is simply an attempt to pose one reality as superior (more real) than others. This is a game that has played out historically as a function of force or fraud, i.e., a function of power.
If we want reality to be any more than the result of power play, we must understand it as a phenomenon within consciousness. And deal with that reality!
Respectfully,
Kurt
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
17 answers
Cosmology is difficult because space, time and the sizes of cosmological things are at scales vastly larger and smaller than are easily perceived by human beings. To guess what the universe is like requires extrapolations. But extrapolations are based on the assumption that what we can witness, see and measure corresponds to what we can’t witness, can’t see and can’t measure. Is cosmology science? Is it a science-in-waiting? Does cosmology become science when its ideas are confirmed by astronomy?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes. Learning about the formation and development of other constellations, planetary systems, other exoplanets on which life may exist allows you to expand the resources of knowledge about the formation of the planet Earth and the origin of life on our planet. It is pure science.
Thank you, Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
13 answers
It is commonly accepted that General Relativity has its own 'bare' cosmological constant that contributes together with the cosmological constant resulting from vacuum energy density for an effective cosmological constant. Are there any candidates for this 'bare' cosmological constant?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Stefan Ruster,
"quantum theory is correct."
Quantum theory in general is no more than a bad joke. Every one of these so-called theories is almost completely wrong. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, Is the best mathematical system that we have to make predictions in the quantum world. But the logic of it is no better than 'woo' physics.
Advocates of the logic and theories believe that local hidden variables have been dis-proved, but they are wrong. Einstein believed there was no such thing as an aether based upon his proposal of Special Relativity. For this reason, he proposed warped space in General Relativity. But he too was wrong for the same reason.
Since Einstein's proposals we have observed the Zero-Point-Field for more than 70 years now. We have proposed the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, quantum foam etc. Even if some of these fields are pure fantasy, there are proven background fields that could rightfully be called an aether.
For the theory of quantum mechanics to be correct none of these fields could be involved with the quantum world. For General Relativity to be correct, none of these fields could be involved with gravity. Since both of these theories require the non-existence of these fields at solar-system scales they can be mathematically correct, but both theoretically wrong for the same reason. That's why IMO they don't and cannot agree with each other, and why no theory of everything could ever be correct without the inclusion of at least one background field that interacts at all scales to explain reality, mathematics aside.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
33 answers
According to Weyl and Chandrasekhar, general relativity (GR) is a triumph of speculative thought. But it is a well-known fact that GR is initiated by two analogies. Analogy is known to be a weak reasoning in science and philosophy. To redress the case this type of reasoning is renamed as Equivalence Principle (EP) in relativistic physics. The renaming, however, could not hide the fact that the presented analogy was not flawless. Irrefutable disproves were side-stepped and the analogy was instated to be the seed of new kind of physics. EP was defended by reducing the size of the lab and the duration of the experiment. This type of defending is like the proponents of flat-earth idea defend their case by reducing the patch of the land for examination until their pseudo-science theory is proven.
The attached document is a short description of EP analogies and its well-known critics. The document also introduces a new EP based on Uniform Deceleration of a spaceship in open space. This new analogy results in a different curvature of light in comparison to what original EP has established using uniform acceleration. The author believes that none of the conclusions from EPs should be allowed in science as they are based on inconclusive comparison/analogy and they ignore glaring flaws in the argument.
The author would like to present this new EP for discussion and criticism.
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with all your criticism.
JES
p.s.
It would be interesting to see a new theory evolve from your insight.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
32 answers
Should a manned mission to Mars, which could be implemented in a few years, be an international mission, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of international rivalry of the leading economically and politically largest countries?
Apparently a manned mission to the planet Mars is now technically possible.
Researchers working on space exploration programs argue that it is technically possible that humans already have the necessary technology to carry out a two-year manned mission to Mars.
First of all, it is necessary for the US President to issue a program of a manned mission to Mars.
A similar program in the 1980s was announced by then US President John F. Kennedy.
The plan of a manned mission to the moon was fully realized at that time.
However, the current mission to Mars, technically possible, would require large financial outlays for the implementation of this mission.
Perhaps it would be necessary to organize an international consortium that would organize an international manned mission to Mars.
Maybe it could also be an international crew of this mission?
Then mission costs could be spread over several countries and it would have global significance in terms of international cooperation.
The previous analogous manned space mission, i.e. the manned expedition to Earthly Princes in the 1970s, had the significance of political rivalry between the then US and the Soviet Union.
It was a symbolic technological race.
Is the planned manned mission to Mars also inspired by this type of international competition, for example between the US and China or possibly also some other countries?
China is rapidly developing technologically, aspiring to become a global powerhouse in a few years time. 1 not only in the scope of production of various goods and economic growth but also in the matter of having the most modern innovative technologies implemented in various economic applications.
In the US, a very large, historically high public debt can be a significant finns barrier to finance and thus the USA will organize a manned mission to Mars in the next few years.
If this mission to Mars is mainly inspired by this new international rivalry in terms of having technological capabilities, it is currently difficult to predict which country will win the race and be the first to organize manned missions to Mars?
In view of the above, I ask you with the following question: Should a manned mission to Mars, which could be implemented in a few years be an international mission, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of international rivalry leading economically and politically the largest countries?
Please reply. I invite you to the discussion
Relevant answer
Answer
Same as fighting the COVID pandemic, we have the technology and know-how ... but not the wisdom to work collaboratively. #Greed #Ego #Individualism
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
4 answers
Suppose there is a static 3 dim space and a dynamic changing 4 dim space. Without that supposition, lots of problems in physics remain puzzles. With it, lots of puzzles are easily resolved.
Energy in 4 dimensional space, where the fourth dim is proportional to the distance light travels or the time it takes for light to travel that distance, has 4/3 as much energy per dimension as does 3 dim static space. Hence, dim space a 4/3 length L when 4 dim space has a distance of length L. This appears to account for space expanding. A supernova’s distance from Earth measured in the 4 dim space where light moves, using redshift, should appear to be 3/4 as luminous when comparing type 1A supernovas, because in static 3 dim space the supernova is 4/3 as far. Other data is consistent. Energy density for dark energy (so called) compared to matter energy density is in the ratio [ E/ L^3] : [ E/ {(4/3)L}^3, which is 4^3/3^3 which is about 0.7033/ 0.2967, as has been observed in astronomy.
There are numerous examples of this 4:3 ratio occurring a variety of different natural phenomena, as set out in various article in my projects dealing with the 4/3 laws and DE.
Or maybe not?
Relevant answer
Answer
The history of science shows that the universe does include two reference frames, (1) one static three-dimensional space and (2) the other dynamic containing four-dimensional space. The classic mechanical physics of Isaac Newton's three Laws of Motion is a locus classicus for (1), and Albert Einstein's discovery of the photoelectric effect exemplifies a dynamic inroad in our understanding of the physical laws of our cosmos. Thus, the mathematically formulated proof for (1) F = MA; and for (2) e = mc2 will have to be followed by yet a third (3) discovery of (A) a formula, with (B) mathematical proof, of the next step, if any, that improves on the revolutionary advances made by the scientific community that culminated in the breakthrough discoveries of Newton & Einstein.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
5 answers
It has radically altered it by rehabilitating Fritz Zwicky 1929.
Hence ten Nobel medals are gone. And cheap energy for all is made possible. Provided, that is, that humankind is capable of mentally following in Yakov Sinai’s chaotic footsteps. If not, energy remains expensive and CERN remains dangerous to all: A funny time that we are living in. With the crown of Corona yet waiting to be delivered.
April 1st, 2020
Relevant answer
Answer
Please, elaborate.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
6 answers
Dear Colleagues,
I am a liaison (informal) at my university between science and the arts. I have family in planetary astronomy but this is far afield.
A question or two:
What does this newly-reported Radcliffe Wave of gaseous proto-stars tell us about how our galaxy originated?
Is there any chance that this wave will make some difference in our own sun's behavior?
Relevant answer
Dear Preston,
Intriguin view, thanks for sharing Vera Lima
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
10 answers
I want some help in being able to clearly perceive the expansion of the universe and the consequences thereof.
We know that the universe is expanding in an accelerated manner. It is my understanding that space alone cannot expand without affecting the local time. Thus as per GTR, depending on the curvature of space-time and the energy density, time too shall suffer a change due to the changing space.
Assuming that there is no curvature of space-time and no mass or energy contained in a chunk of space (assuming the zero-point energy of empty space as zero) between two galaxies A and B, let us say that the local time at a point P in this space goes as t0. If we on Earth could somehow observe this point and measure the time at P as t,
  1. When we talk about the rate of expansion for example as in Hubble's Law, do we follow the comoving coordinates or the proper coordinates?
  2. How would t and t0 relate to each other if the rate of expansion is uniform and accelerating respectively?
  3. How much is 1s for the comoving observer at the inflation period in terms of the usual 1s now on Earth?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Bibhusit Tripathy,
Thank you for the interesting question. As I visualize it: In the comoving coordinates of the Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, g00=1 and so time is not dilated between galaxies, but is universal throughout all space, where space is defined as that three-dimensional slice of FRW space-time such that dt=0. A clock between galaxies comoving with the galaxies would thus not show time dilation in FRW coordinates. This is true regardless of whether the scale factor a(t) is accelerating, decelerating, or increasing linearly with time. However, if we use coordinates in which galaxies recede at a certain velocity (which I believe you call "proper" coordinates), then a clock between two galaxies moving with the galaxies would show time dilation as given by special relativity. This is not a paradox. In FRW coordinates, space is a different slice of space-time than it is for "proper" coordinates. Essentially FRW space, or the t=constant slice of FRW space-time, extends further and further into the future as r increases, as compared to space in "proper" coordinates. Regarding question 1, the Hubble expansion in FRW coordinates refers to the expansion of space itself, while in "proper" coordinates, it would be interpreted as due to the motion of galaxies. I am currently working on this problem and may write a paper on it.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
1 answer
This question requires explanation. Discussion on the second day of Galileo’s Two Chief World Systems raises the point.
Simplicio, taking the position of those opposed to Copernicus, doubts the Earth moves; if Earth moved it would have to move at too great a speed. Sagredo and Salviati say this objection has no merit. The fixed stars have a radius far greater than the Earth, and yet the implied speed, much greater than that of the Earth in the Copernican conceptual reference frame, does not undermine the belief of the anti-Copernicans in their objection. Here is an inconsistency.
The inconsistency is not encountered in modern times that takes for granted the heliocentric model of the solar system. This argument, based on the large radius of the distant stars, is one not usually encountered. One supposes that is so, because it is unnecessary. But then the question arises. Does society lose or forget these old insights that are discarded once new conceptual reference frames take hold? Or, perhaps, is nothing lost?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello @Robert Shour,
On the question, "Does society lose or forget these old insights that are discarded once new conceptual reference frames take hold?" Yes, in the sense that too much "knowledge" eclipses common sense. A case in point is what I call the "Wimbledon Phenomenon". A couple years ago, British social scientists conducted a survey among 1) Housewives, and 2) Tennis trainers, asking who would win the next Wimbledon championship. The housewives out-performed the tennis trainers by a large margin.
It could also be argued that the Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric (as "a new conceptual reference frame") and its attendant big bang theory and LambdaCDM cosmological model have eclipsed all common sense about the nature of the universe, insofar as huge contradictions now exist in standard cosmology, for example related to Dark Energy, which has a phantom equation of state p<-rho and therefore behaves like anti-gravity. Yet this does not undermine the Mainstream Physicist's continuing belief in their objections to refutations of LambdaCDM!
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
12 answers
Dear all,
in accordance with Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equation there are three different possibilities of space curvature which can be described mathematically and imparted graphically or analogously (Closed, Openend or Flat Universe). In the attached poster a fourth graphic representation is shown, which is however only graphically derived.
Is this sketch describable within Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equations? How can we interpret this sketch? A Universe that is truly infinite, although it has a defined start and a defined end point?
What would be a 3-Dimensional mathematical object to describe the plot (closed hypertorus, while closed means without a connection in the center?). And what numbers for curvature parameter k and density Parameter Ω make sense for this sketch?
I have created this plot purely graphically and wonder whether a mathematical interpretation of such a shaped space-time is possible, or whether it inevitably leads to paradoxes and is thus a graphic that can be drawn abstractly, but ultimately makes no mathematical sense.
Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
I might add that my paper on a "Bipolar Model"...of hyperbolic space was rejected by Physics journals as being too mathematical and by Mathematics journals as being too physical. It primarily raises the question of what coordinates are "physical". This is not easy to answer. For example rotating coordinates are considered non-physical, but if you are in them, they are real and there is physics associated with them. As mentioned above, one needs to consider the matter distribution to make sense of them.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
11 answers
Dimension is fundamental. Was it present at creation of the universe? Did it play a role in creation of the universe?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Robert Shour, the dimension of the Universe and cosmogenesis, respectively, is determined completely by human perception for given stage of human evolution. We consider the space where we live as 3-dimensional one. Einstein created the theory where the time is the 4-th coordinate of the curved space-time. Contemporary scientists assume that the time flows only from the past to the future. Of course, General Relativity creates more bread picture of the World. But it is evidently that the model of the World will be more complete in further. Contemporary scientists study 4-dimensional models of the Universe. Why must we consider only 4 dimensions? Why the time must possess only one dimension and why it must flow only from the future. Our models of the Universe correspond to our consciousness at the given time. When human consciousness reaches more high level, people will consider our people as multidimensional one.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
30 answers
I have found two different results for the effect of dark matter on the orbital speed of the Sun. One from Wikipedia suggests there is no effect while another one from astronomynotes suggests there is a substantial effect. Which one is correct? Both Figures and their captions are attached.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dark matter density is 6x10-22 KG/m3, radius of earth's orbit 1011 m, therefore amount of dark matter within earths radius is, (4/3) x π x 1033 x 6 x 10-22=2.53 x 1012 kg. This is much smaller than the mass of the sun which is 2 x 1030 kg. Thus we cannot feel the effect of dark matter compared to sun's gravitational pull.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
6 answers
The universe as a whole is much larger than the portion we can measure. That "observable universe" (OU) has a proper radius of around 43 billion light years. The Planck mission measured the curvature density ΩK of the OU as 0.0±0.005. For the positive 1 sigma value, that suggests the whole would be a 3-sphere with a radius of ~210 billion light years but inflation suggests the curvature should be much closer to zero, hence the whole would be far larger, probably many orders of magnitude. For zero or negative curvature, the spatial extent would be infinite.
If we assume that the whole is much larger than the observable portion, we could think of many alien species scattered throughout the universe but so widely separated that there is no overlap between their respective OUs. While the universe would have a mean curvature density, there are also statistical variations, so we can think of producing a histogram of the values of ΩK for all these uncorrelated regions, each around 43 billion light years in radius.
The Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum tells us the two-point correlation of density as a function of separation of sample points. Specifically, it would be a power law with slope 1 but quantum effects predict a slightly smaller value and it has a measured slope of 0.96 (Planck mission results, 2015). The same results also gave a null result for "running" of the spectrum, which means it appears to be linear, no quadratic term, and there is no evidence of non-Gaussianity, which means the distribution can be assumed to be the standard bell curve.
My question is: what would be the standard deviation of the samples of ΩK measured over a large number of non-overlapping regions, each the size of our observable universe?
If anyone needs more background, I can provide links to introductory articles and some undergraduate lectures. This is the relevant section in the Planck results paper:
P.S. If you don't accept the standard model of cosmology or have your own alternative, don't waste your time replying, I am looking for a purely mathematical answer based on the conventional model.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear George,
Back to my first suggestion, please try using my method, which I have created the calculator, i.e. http://sigitharyadi.net/multidicipline/non-intercept-linear-regression-id/Procedure: (1) From the data you have, specify the dependent and independent variables, where you are sure that there is a linear relationship that does not have an intercept (i.e. when the independent variable is 0, the independent variable must be zero), (2) Use my website, then you will get a regression equation accompanied by the level of correlation between two variables you have set, and the confidence level of the regression equation, (3) After that, you can use the regression equation to extrapolate to the area outside the range of your measurement data (and possibly for an interpolation within the measurement area), where the standard deviation or variance, or the possibility of miscalculation is equal to one minus the correlation index of the calculation you get from the my calculator.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
16 answers
Geodesics in a curved finite space are not parallel. Volumes transported over cosmic distances therefore will alter their shape and orientation in respect to initial conditions.  If compared with the initial condition, the volume length in direction towards a receiver becomes increased during the transport; the receiver of radiation out of that volume will notice a red shift and a time dilatation. His immediate impression will be that an according expansion of the universe must have occurred. But it was only a curved space effect, which has caused a modification in shape, extension and orientation of the volume filled with radiation.
Could this answer some of the unsolved problems in cosmology?
C.f. Wikipedia; List of unsolved problems in physics; Cosmology and general relativity
Cosmic inflation
there is no cosmic inflation, the geometry of the universe is static.
Horizon problem
there is no horizon problem. The universe is closed. If we continuously go in any direction we finally will arrive at the starting point.
Origin and future of the universe
there is no origin, the universe is and stays eternal.
Size of the universe
the size is finite and can be determined from the length dilation on volume transport and the according red shift numbers.
Baryon asymmetry
the universe always had been filled with baryonic matter. Black holes are involved in coordinated recycling processes.
Dark anything
gravitational influence must be recalculated based on the static, finite, isotropic and homogenous geometry. In analogy to geometric influence on transported light, an influence on transported matter may exist. The deformed view on the transported images of galaxies also requires recalculations.
Axis of evil/Copernican Principle
the problem does not exist because the microwave background looks about the same in any direction at any place in the universe.
Shape of the universe
mathematically the shape of the universe can be described by a mapping of finite Cartesian coordinates to unit quaternions. A displacement corresponds to a multiplication with the according quaternion. This means that any displacement only alters the direction of the three dimensional view on the universe.
Could this model answer further questions or do more severe unanswered questions arise?
Relevant answer
Answer
Wolfgang, answer to your questions are in the paper "Illusion of space expansion ....." on this site. and other papers by us. Take a look 
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
2 answers
Or general steps controlling the "birth" and "death" of a sinkhole conceptually similar to Wilson's cycle in plate tectonics?
Relevant answer
Answer
I'm not aware of a formalised theory/framework of this.
It's going to depend on the type of sinkhole as well. For a suffusion sinkhole (for example) then it is more progressive, rather than having a fixed end point, so it's hard to conceptualise a "death". Whereas for a cover collapse type sinkhole in karst terrain, then it could be conceptualised as the start of the dissolution of limestone is the "birth" of the sinkhole or the start of the overall process. Then once the void is sufficiently large to create a void into which the caprock collapses this is the "death", as it is the end of the active process. It tends to be the case that caprock type sinkholes aren't progressive. That is to say, once the true sinkhole has formed the feature is no longer "active" and it is rare for them to keep expanding.
There certainly isn't a conceptual theory of this though, in text books for example. It's an interesting angle to ponder.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
5 answers
Full disclosure: I'm a protein biochemist and a cell biologist. I have no expertize in physics or cosmology.
But I have been mesmerized by documentaries on black holes on science cable channels.
One of many things that I do not understand is the different depiction of massive and super massive black holes.
Since their mass has collapsed into a single point, shouldn't all black holes be the same size in 2D, regardless of their mass?
Why are black holes depicted as a big black planet-like objects with swirling gas around them? 
Is it more appropriate to depict them as a drain (like a flushing toilet)?
Relevant answer
Answer
Schwarzschild radius of the neutron star is much smaller than the radius of the star therefore it cannot arrest the light emitted by its surface. When proton and electron combine they do not annihilate each other but proton gets transformed into neutron.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
9 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Dark energy has a finite density, approximately 68% of the total energy density of the Universe. Assuming for simplicity a nonvarying Hubble constant H, our cosmological event horizon is at a distance c/H away (c = speed of light). Since c/H is finite, the total dark energy within our observable universe is finite. If the actual Universe is infinite, extending forever beyond our cosmological event horizon, then the total dark energy is infinite, but that beyond our cosmological event horizon can never interact with us. But the above neglects the negative gravitational potential energy of the dark energy in the gravitational field of the Universe. Counting this negative gravitational potential energy, the total energy of the Universe is zero.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
1 answer
This is a rebuttal to a reviewer's comment about my claim that Absolute Peak Luminosity of type 1A Supernova are proportional to G^(-3) rendering Apparent SN1a distances having a dependence to G^(3/2)
Let me know if you disagree that I kicked this objection to the curb and thus all Supernovae distances are overestimated by G^(3/2) !!!!!  :)
##############################################
REVIEWER:  I’m also skeptical that the luminosity of a SN Ia if G were different would scale as G^-3 (or M_ch^2).
Ni-56 production is not a simple rate-limited process; SNe Ia undergo a deflagration that (in most cases) transitions to a detonation. They burn about half their mass to Ni-56 (depending on when the detonation occurs). Even if Ni-56 production were a simple process, the radius (and thus the density) of the white dwarf also changes with G.
ANSWER: Firstly, let’s consider the reviewer's assertion that density in a White Dwarf also changes with G. That is incorrect. Detailed derivation was contained in appendix and is reproduced below.
######################################################
I corrected an assumption about Luminosity and Mass.  Now it is perfect...:)
This argument proves that Luminosity depends upon G^(-3) and since G is epoch dependent in my theory and proportional to the inverse of the 4D radius of the Universe, earlier epochs had stronger Gravitation. Stronger Gravitation means weaker SN1a, resulting in overestimation of distances.  The farther the SN1a is, the larger the overestimation.
The distances are overestimated by G^(1.5).  Once one corrects them, Inflation Theory disappears in a puff... The same goes to General Relativity and Dark Energy....:)
The argument supporting this dependence is based on the work of David Arnett about type II Supernova Luminosity. This is an estimation of the dependence of the Luminosity with G.
To extract the dependence, we force the radius of the Supernova to have a Chandrasekhar radius dependence. We also estimated the M0 (Sun mass) dependence upon G. The Sun mass is a relative mass reference within the context of Supernova mass. Supernovae occurs in the dominant radiative pressure (as opposed to gas pressure) regimen.  Under that circumstance, the Luminosity dependence comes up as Luminosity Proportional to G^(-3).
Needless to say, this derivation is trivial and consistent with Supernovae and Star models.
It takes just one page to be derived, easy as Butter.  (of course, after David Arnett did all the hard work...:)
##########################################
This means that the SN1a ruler, which is the basis of Cosmology and Astrophysics would be faulty under an epoch dependent G context.  Since HU is epoch-dependent and predicts the Supernovae distances perfectly and without any parametrization, that places the Standard Model in a very precarious position.
If you add to that, HU observation of Neutronium Acoustic Oscillations or NAO... (which is what Algebraists should be saying right now...:)  I think, there is reckoning coming...
See the NAO... SDSS had this data for 10 years. Since they are basically Algebraists and see the Universe according to GR, they cannot imagine acoustic waves along distances. The Universe is supposed to be Uniform...
HU sees oscillations primarily along distances (which corresponds to cosmological angles).  There may or may not be cross-talk with the 3D angular modes.   I say that because I don't see the 150 Mpc wavelength in HU 2-point correlation.
So, How Long will the Community refrain from welcoming my conclusion that there was no Big Bang (there was Many Bangs) and that the Universe didn't come out of a fiery explosion, dilation is nonsense, vacuum fluctuations driving a Big Bang are utterly nonsense.... GR is nonsense..etc.
Relevant answer
Answer
Below is the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU) to the question of how environments with different Gravitation would affect the Absolute Luminosity of SN1A Supernovae.
The derivation starts with the work of David Arnett on type II Supernova.  We apply type 1A Chandrasekhar radius G dependence to the thermal Energy and to R0. We also scale a Sun Mass by modeling the Sun mass under different regimen - Low and HIgh radiative pressure.
This is an estimation to see if they expected dependence is consistent with astronomical observations, so the precise value is less relevant than the range.
Astronomical observations are consistent, within the logical framework of the Hypergeometrical Universe, with a G^(-3) dependence. That is exactly what one obtains using the High Radiative Regimen to evaluate the mass of the Sun G dependence.
That said, irrespective to which model we useed the range varied Between G^(-3.5) and G^(-3).
The relevance of this results is that in HU, G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe. 
The Standard Cosmological Model considers that the Absolute Luminosity of a SN1a is constant or standardizable (variations due to different amount of ejecta are renormalizable through the empirical methodology WLR).
HU proposes the G is epoch-dependent, which would make SN1a to be epoch-dependent in a way that farther away SN1a had intrinsically weaker explosions and thus reduced Luminosity. Our adjustment of David Arnett's work indicated a G^(-3) Luminosity dependence.
That would result in an overstimation of the distances of Supernovae by G^(1.5).  After correction of the distances we can compare HU d(z) predictions with the astronomical observations.  See plot below:
The results below are consistent with 
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
4 answers
how can I find observational data for circular velocity of spiral galaxies (v(r)) versus the distance from the center of galaxies(r)?
Relevant answer
Answer
NASA starts Stealing my Gravitation theory:
“The majority of Ferent matter(Dark matter) is the core of the supermassive black hole” Adrian Ferent(Jan 14, 2015)
NASA --"Primordial Black Holes Formed in 1st Fraction of a Second of the Universe Could Function as Dark Matter" (The Weekend Feature)
October 29, 2016
“Black holes formed in the universe's first fraction of a second -- could work as dark matter." Kashlinsky said (May 24, 2016)
Ferent matter is Dark matter – Adrian Ferent (Jan 14, 2015)
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
5 answers
It is not known wether axions where formed before or after the inflationary epoch. It is usually assumed that axions are produced during inflation, during the GUT symmetry breaking phase which are energies of the order of the GeV’s scales (between 10^11-10^16GeV’s).

 Nevertheless, there are models which work on the production of axions just at the end of the Big Bang/before inflation, if this were the case the energy scales of axion production could even reach the TeV energy scale. Is this a correct claim?
Relevant answer
Answer
Ours business is to understand, or to try to understand, at least, what is happening in very straong gravitational, magnetic, electric fields... Or what is Physics near Black Holes, Neutron Stars, White Dwarfs, at very Great distances or redshifts.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
9 answers
The symmetry between matter and antimatter is thought to have been broken in the early universe a short time after the end of cosmological inflation (« baryogenesis »). Matter and antimatter annihilated each other except a small excess of baryons and leptons which outnumbered their antiparticles and are at the origin of all the matter content of the universe. This is still at theoretical level (no experimental proof). However the pressure has probably changed very quickly from negative (inflation …) to positive (cloud of baryons and leptons). Also the energy produced by the annihilation must have gone somewhere. Could anybody give a simple digest of what physically occurred during baryogenesis and of the orders of magnitude according to the most accepted model(s) ?   
Relevant answer
Answer
Guibert:
Sorry, I do not know that I know how to compute such a pressure. You seem to be 'open' to 'more details,' so let me say a little more. And, permit to ask if you might try a calculation.
My work seems to provide a theoretical 'match' for the experimental approximate 'spatial range' for the weak interaction. (Book, table 2.9.4 and sections 2.10 and 3.8) To the extent that the match pertains for (the would-be) 2O bosons also, the interactions I posit (in my answer above) need to occur under conditions for which …
·         The densities (number of reacting fermion particles per unit volume) of leptons are high enough for interactions intermediated by W bosons to occur.
·         The densities (number of reacting fermion particles per unit volume) of antimatter quarks are high enough for interactions intermediated by non-zero-charge 2O bosons to occur.
The range of a 2O boson would be somewhat less than half the range of a W boson. Experimentally, a range for the weak interaction is somewhere around 10^(-18) meters and less than 3x10^(-17) meters.
Perhaps you can use the above to estimate a time (presumably, a fraction of a second after the instant of the big bang) by which the universe would have achieved (much of its) matter/antimatter asymmetry? I would welcome such an estimate.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
10 answers
From the deceleration parameter q=−(a¨a/(a˙)2)   ---------(1)
where a is the scale factor.
Hubble's parameter H=a˙/a    ------------(2)
Substituting equation (2) in (1),
q=−(a¨/Ha˙) ---------------(3)
Making a¨ the subject in equation (3),
a¨= −(qHa˙)
This clearly shows that there is a link between the magnitude of the Hubble's constant and the acceleration value of the Observable Universe.
The present day value of q is approximately −0.55.
Is my proposal correct?
Relevant answer
Answer
Max, it would avoid a lot of confusion if you used the standard symbols for the parameters. The letter a is usually the scale factor, q is used for deceleration and c is the speed of light.
ME: Is the acceleration value of the expansion of the Observable Universe the product of Hubble's constant and the speed of light?
No, it is defined as the product of the scale factor and its second derivative divided by the square of the first derivative. See the first link.
ME: From Hubble's constant being equal to the second divided by the first derivative of the scale factor ...
No, the Hubble parameter is the first derivative divided by the scale factor, see the second link.
ME: C is the speed of the farthest galaxies in our Hubble volume which move at light speed.
All sources beyond roughly z=1.6 are receding at more than the speed of light. The farthest known galaxy is at z=11.09 and the CMBR comes from z=1089.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
30 answers
May I have your opinion on the solution of Black Hole Information Paradox proposed in the attached  
TEDx talk?
Relevant answer
Answer
Andrew Worsley,
Looking through your An Advanced Dynamic Adaptation of Newtonian Equations of Gravity I find that it has a fundamental defect with respect to GTR: your equations have no time dependence. Thia means that you, just as Newton,, assume that gravitational effects propagate with infinite velocity. If Mercury would fall into the Sun, that would be felt immediately and withot time delay throughout the whole universe. The recent observation of gravitational waves is the experimental proof, that this is not so. Therefore I suggest that you correct your Advanced Dynamic Adaptation of Newtonian Equations of Gravity. to be more in agreement with GTR.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
63 answers
In 1920 Eddington published a book Space, Time & Gravitation on general relativity which included an ingeniously simple derivation of light bending using general relativity.  The book may be found at a link below, and the explanation is on page 99.  Einstein used essentially the same explanation in The Meaning of Relativity published in 1922 (also linked below), in the vicinity of equation (107).  A coordinate transformation is made so that coordinate light speed is isotropic and Huygens bending, also known is the Fresnel principle, is applied.  The answer is taken at face value without re-transforming coordinates.
Using a graphical analysis of Huygens bending, I concluded that it is not coordinate independent.  See image attached.
Has there been any discussion of this method since 1922?  Is it still considered correct?
Relevant answer
Answer
There has been a comment recently in the Journal of Physical Mathematics about light bending in General Relativity.
It appears that when the internal structure of photons is clearly understood, there is no need to resort to GR spacetime curvature to explain the correct light bending angle.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
45 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The big bang in classical general relativity involves a space-time singularity, a point of zero volume, infinite density, and infinite space-time curvature.  This involves the interesting topic of how to handle infinite values in physical theories as well as the limits of applicability of theories.
In most areas of physics the appearance of a singularity or an infinite value of an experimentally measurable physical quantity can be taken a a sign that we have reached the limits of applicability of the theory. One example is the ultraviolet catastrophe where applying equipartition of energy to the normal modes of the electromagnetic field emitted by a blackbody (a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation) in thermal equilibrium results in an infinite amount of energy at short wavelengths (so we should be blasted by an infinite amount of energy while sitting in front of our fireplace). This was solved by Planck with quantization of the emission and absorption of electromagnetic energy.
In some cases an infinite value is considered "benign" and removed by a procedure such as renormalization or regularization. The value of the "bare" charge of an electron in QED (quantum electrodynamics) is infinite but this is not the value which results from a laboratory measurement of the charge. This apparent infinity is removed by renormalization which takes virtual higher order effects into account to produce a finite value corresponding to what is actually measured.
General relativity has sometimes been described as the only area of physics that takes its singularities seriously or literally, whether it is the initial singularity at the big bang or the singularity at the center of a black hole.  There are even singularity theorems which specify the conditions under which singularities occur. This takes place in a classical space-time with no quantum gravitational effects. Once again the occurrence of a singularity is really a sign that our theory is breaking down and that a new theory, in this case a theory of quantum gravity, is required. It is generally believed that this occurs at a finite but very small scale which for distance is referred to as the Planck length, approximately 10^-33 cm, beyond which classical general relativity no longer applies (Technically it is the space time curvature which is important here. When the curvature is of the order of one over the square of the Planck length then quantum gravitation effects are expected to be important). This length scale is extremely small and is approximately 10^-20 times the diameter of a proton.
Thus while extrapolating backwards in standard cosmology appears to lead to a singularity of zero volume, infinite density and infinite space-time curvature, classical general relativity is no longer applicable at a stage before the singularity occurs when all relevant quantities are still finite. Until a full theory of quantum gravity is available we can only make limited and speculative statements about what may happen at smaller scales (greater space-time curvatures). 
As a final note, for completeness I should point out that there exist alternate theories of gravitation and alternate cosmologies that find various ways to get around this problem. Three examples are John Moffat's MOG or modified gravity, Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and QSSC or Quasi-Steady State Cosmology of Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. In general there are far fewer people working on these theories compared to standard general relativity and cosmology and thus far fewer resulting publications. It should also be pointed out that these alternative theories are generally not accepted by the (vast) majority of relativists and cosmologists.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
33 answers
  Hubble’s law doesn`t explain why distant objects were receding fastest. Conversely, a distant observer will see that the distant objects (those nearest to us) are receding fastest than those nearby (those distant to us).  What causes such illusion? 
Relevant answer
Answer
Charles, The peculiar local velocities  of galaxies in the group do not affect  the resultant cosmological redshift!. After collecting evidence for many years, Halton Arp maintains that extragalactic redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
41 answers
A 3-spherical geometry for the Universe was once proposed by Einstein and is still held by others.
For example, a 3-spherical geometry could explain Big Bang evidence, such as:
  • The redshift of galaxies.  Explained by geometrical lensing from the geodesics of S3.
  • The CMB.  Could be caused by diffused light from geodesics originating from “behind” earth’s antipode, etc.
I’m sure there is more evidence for the Big Bang, but the two above are the most cited.
The reason I’m considering that particular geometry for the Universe is that the existence of matter-waves can be attributed to S3 motional geometry.
One more thing, the dimensions of the 3-sphere are assumed to be spatial and do not include time as a dimension.  The fourth dimension of the hypersphere is unobservable therefore unknown.
If that’s the case, the need for a Big Bang becomes questionable.
Your comments, please.
Bernardo.
Relevant answer
Answer
Don't spam other people's questions Adrian, go away and work out the proofs for the questions you've been asked first.
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
4 answers
As a theoretical cosmologist, spectral index, running spectral index and scalar to tensor ratio are some of the things one can easily calculate for the model we devise. But it comes very handy to plot them on top of the distribution that is usually obtained by running CosmoMC on Planck data. Can someone describe how these plots are obtained and what is quickest way to reproduce the such as fig.9 in the link attached, without divulging oneself into the details of Planck data analysis. 
Relevant answer
Answer
there is some programs allow you to take the numerical values  from the scientific graphs like  r and n_s in planck results  , then you can  re-produce this contours by matlab or any other program, see for example "dagra" , it's simple and good programm I'll add the link of home page of the program
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology
Question
2 answers
I think that inside a reactor one can obtain neutrons of different energies. My question is if it is possible to create two sources as in the picture?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Sofia!
The fission neutrons have different energis like β-particles. The question is how to separate neutrons. I would say you can lead two neutron-beams through differently thick shilds of moderator. The two neutron beams will show two spectra of energy.
By the way the picture is idealised. To shield neutrons absolutely is nearly impossible.
Regards
Hans
  • asked a question related to Physical Cosmology