Stephen P. King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:16:28 -0400
Dear Matti and Paul and Bill,
Just a few philosophical comments...
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> [MP] I meant with 'works' that the redshift is large enough given the
> distance of hthe object. The required density seems so huge
> that it is difficult to understand how GRT cosmology could have coped so
> > -----------
> > >> If I remember correctly, the average recent density of matter is roughly
> > >> one proton per cubic meter (correct me if I am wrong!). This is by a
> > >> factor 10^-4 smaller than the needed density. This density would be over
> > >> critical by factor of order 10^3 whereas Hubble's results demonstrate that
> > >> density is subcritical by factor of order 10 at least (this is bad news
> > >> for inflation theorists).
> > ----------
> > The paragraph above is what is written at so many places. It is the most
> > non-scientific article in Cosmology.
> > "When you read: the average recent density of matter is roughly one proton
> > per cubic meter"
> > Is this the result of a measurement? or the result of a theory? or what?
> [MP] This is rough rule of thumb based on critical density according
> to standard cosmology. It is not a result of direct measurement:
> measurements of say Hubble telescope rely on redshifts etc.. and
> a model for cosmology. What one can say that the density reproducing
> redshifts is 10^4 times larger than this density. The factor of
> this order of magnitude requires dramatic revision of cosmology.
> GRT cosmology would be badly (mild word) wrong.
> This in turn makes wonder why so badly wrong theory migh have survived so
> well. The problems of the theory are real but quantitatively rather
> innocent. One should understand why density is definitely subcritical (TGD
> predicts this), why fluctuations in temperature are so small (TGD explains
> also this whereas inflations is now in difficulties), one should
> understand apparement acceleration of expansion without introducing
> cosmological constant (TGD does also this), one should understand
> galaxy formation, etc...
We have the example of the pre-Galileo-Copernicus cosmology as an
example! The models that are used to explain phenomena tend, as history
well illustrates, to follow a socio-political consensus. I remember
reading that it is know that the Big Bang theory is inherently
problematic, "it is just that no other alternative is palatable". The
Big Bang theory seems to be an extension of the religion based
cosmogonies that reassured the masses that the Universe has created for
humans by some ever loving Father. There is an emotional appeal to the
notion that the Universe, like our selves, has a finite beginning and
end and that we can trust our "common sense" to reassure us from our
> > This is NOT the result of a measurement. Measurements always report
> > missing matter. Intergalactic gravitational fields show that the amount of
> > matter in the Universe in much larger.
> > This claim is a theoretical prediction assuming Einstein's General
> > Relativity. We know that this model does not work. They had to invent the
> > inflationary universe to correct Eintein's theory. Astrophysicists admit
> > all the time that there are problems, but they do not have the courage to
> > change the model.
Ah, but any time a measurement is made there is an inherent bias in the
measuring system! We can not expect to observe spectra with a cloud
chamber or particle trajectories with an interferometer! I admit that it
is a bit naive to fully believe Lerner when he says in The Big Bang
Never Happened that the angular momentum distribution can be accurately
accounted for by a mathematical model that takes into account that
electro-magnetic forces are involved. Why are we so quick to defend a
mathematical theory that has obvious failures, viz singularities and no
time? We must be courageous! I can understand the "tenured" professional
physicist being conservative, but at what price? What are we interested
in? The truth or the ego gratification?
> GRT model is not complete. Inflationary scenario is in difficulties.
> I believe however that the geometrization of gravitation is correct:
> what is needed is to generalized spacetime concept: spacetime
> as a 4-surface and manysheeted spacetime concept are my medicines
> to the diseases of cosmology.
The biggest problem we have, Matti, is that we do not understand the
basic concepts that you are using. I still do not understand what Kahler
action or NMP. :-( I believe that you see something that we are missing,
but the price of knowledge is the responsibility to explain yourself.
When I propose a dualism, i am burdened to explain why I believe this is
so. I can not just say: "because I (or some "authority") said so! If we
are going to accept the "medicine" of manysheeted spacetime, we need to
understand why. BTW, you are not the only one proposing manysheeted
> > It is non-scientific and misleading claiming that the density of matter is
> > the one calculated by one particlar model (one special case of Einstein's
> > relativity), when observations and knowledge of spectroscopy lead to a
> > quite different answer. By the way, my formation as a physicist is in
> > spectroscopy.
> What I see as a problem is the huge discrepancy of order 10^4.
> If you are right then one can safely forget General Relativity in
> cosmological length scales and concentrate to rescue it in planetary
> length scales(;-).
Wow, I would think that if we "forget General Relativity in
cosmological length scales" the whole Big Bang baby goes out the window
as well! Can we start with the experimental facts, as Heisenberg
teaches, and start over?
> > One must note that this is motion with
> > respect to the universe is NOT COMPATIBLE with Eeinstein's Relativity.
> > According to Einstein, it must be impossible for the observer to detect his
> > own motion. Einstein claimed that all velocities are "relative" and that
> > there is no difference between us moving with respect to the universe and
> > the universe moving with respect to us.
> One can however fix local frame with respect to which matter is at rest.
> This is length scale dependent concept. In larger length scale
> the rest frame might well be different and this would give rise to
> motion of rest frames defined in various length scales with respect
> to other.
The problem is that "rest" is not an absolute notion! This "fixing" is
what I call subjective and contingent upon local restraints...
> In TGD framework the concept of scale becomes precise. Spacetime sheets
> glued on large spacetime sheets define entire hierarchy of rest frames
> moving with respect to each other. When one speaks of scale, also
> fractality is often involved. TGD cosmology is indeed fractal.
> Also fractal GRT cosmology has been recently proposed
> and was inspired by apparent acceleration of expansion.
Question: Are their any constraints stemming from the cohomology
properties of the sheets, e.g. are the "movements" of the rest frames
constrained by the topology of the sheet that they are "glued" to?
> > According to Einstein, we should
> > not be able to detect that anisotropy of the radiation. You must notice
> > that NOBODY has predicted that anisotropy before observing it. However,
> > experimentally it is an experimental fact that this anisotropy is
> > observable in spite of Einstein's relativity.
> > My explanation of the phenomena requires a fixed frame of reference as
> > explained in my book and some papers. This anisotropy is in perfect
> > agreement with my description (and mass-energy conservation).
Could we get the same prediction from a model that assumes that the
anisotropy is related to an stochastic fluctuation in the average of the
observations of interaction observers? This is my idea... I see that the
"cosmos" that we observe has such and such properties because the Local
Systems can agree enough. We have a consensus reality!
> > A model of gravity that started to exist later is NOT COMPATIBLE with
> > Einstein's Relativity.
> > It is an Ad Hoc hypothesis. It is like before Galileo when the circle was
> > a perfect figure and they decided to draw circles inside circles instead of
> > drawing ellipses. When a theory does not work (like relativity), we must
> > find a new one, instead of putting a cataplasm on the old theory.
> > ---------------
> > >> In contrast, an unlimited universe as suggested here agrees with
> > >> Einstein's relativity theory, taking into account the cosmological
> > >> constant(5) that he proposed in 1917.
> > >>
> > >> [MP] Here I disagree. Cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations
> > >> are completely consistent mathematically. Momdent of big bang does *not*
> > >> correspond to blach hole. This is easy to see by imbedding
> > >> Robertson-Walker cosmolology to M^4_+xCP_2. One finds that only
> > >> *subcritical* cosmologies are imbedabble globally and *critical* cosmology
> > >> for a finite duration of time after the big bang. The fact that the recent
> > >> estimates for matter density are definitely sub-critical, support TGD
> > >> strongly. The moment of big bang corresponds to the boundary of
> > >> lightcone. This is not point singularity as often claimed. Neither it is
> > >> blackhole of finite size. What happens is that metric becomes effectively
> > >> two-dimensional since radial direction becomes null direction.
There is more than mathematical consistency involved! Consistency
merely implies existence, not observable by us "fact"! Look at how
Hitoshi uses the R-W metric to explain the "illusion" of an expanding
universe! Why can't we face the fact that we each use our own clock and
ruler to define our poset of observations? What is so scary? "recent
estimates", by who and based upon what? I know that I am being childish,
but really, when do the observational facts count less than some
markings on a chalkboard?
I will not get into the problem that I have with singularities and
> > There are so many things wrong in the Bing Bang model. It never happened.
> > Tell me, since there were nothing before the Big Bang, what is the cause of
> > the Big Bang?
> > ------------
> This is good question and goes to the core problem of present day physics:
> the relationhip between subjective and geometric time.
> I see nothing problematic in Robertson Walker cosmology
> geometrically. It is well defined spacetime manifold with boundary, the
> big bang. If you have soap film spanned by a frame it is not useful to
> talk about the state of soap film as causated by the boundary
> values at frame. The question what 'caused the state of soap film' at
> frame is not sensical. Situation is same now.
What about the old mathematical property of transitivity? We either
have a "before" and "after" or nothing at all! To postulate that
existence "began" is a monstrous contradiction! What I see going on is
that the "observation" of events by a finite LS "began" at some point
and will, inevitably, end at some other. To assume that "existence in
itself" is contingent upon any particular observation is pedantic! Yes,
the particulars properties of the observation are contingent, but the
"potential to be observed" is NOT!
> What is wrong with the identification of psychological time experienced
> by conscious observers with geometric time extrapolated to the notion
> that some kind of time=constant front='now' propagates in geometric
> spacetime. This identification indeed leads to your question what
> caused the initial values at the moment of big bang, At least to the
> problem what dictated the initial values.
Yes, Matti, but that is not the point! if there were no "psychological
time" possible, these questions would not "exist"! Why don't we just
consider that we are projecting an actuality, independent of the
observers involved, and this projection acts to "fix" "initial values"
that are consistent with the poset of observations of the interacting
observers? There is no need to assume that there is a space-time with
definite particle trajectories outside of observation, all that is
needed is to understand that posets of observations are ordered both by
physical causality (laws of motion, conservation laws, etc.) and logical
Instead of assuming that there exists some divine entity "out there"
making sure that Laws are obeyed, why can't we consider that local
logical considerations are necessary and sufficient?
> The correct question to ask is what is the mechanism causing
> the conents of our conscious experience to be concentrated around
> definite moment T of geometric time (as it seems) and why the
> value of T increases at least statistically. This unavoidably leads to
> a theory of consciousness. which cannot be done yet publicly.
This is one of the aspects of Pratt's dualism! The connection between
time and consciousness becomes obvious when we consider that "time" is
meaningless independent of observation! When we require a "mechanism" to
"cause the contents of our ... experience to be concentrated around...",
we are tacitly assuming that there is a unique T increasing ("at least
statistically"). Why? Is it not enough to consider that each observer
has a clock and can make observations (of each other!) and that classes
of observers that have similar enough observations tend (statistically)
to be able to agree? This "mechanism" looks suspiciously, to me, like
Searching for Truth!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST