Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> ......
Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman... They tell us how forces work, how they interact with matter, how they interact amongst themselves, the cause and consequence... But they don't tell us the 'being' of the forces. This is because that is a philosophical question. And here is an important point from me: I've always stated the TOE needs both science and philosophy. By science I didn't mean the classical idea of science, and by philosophy I didn't mean the classical metaphysical idea. The philosophy which is requiered in the TOE is that which must talk about the natural concepts, and mixed with the science that talks about the natural concepts, we can acheive the TOE. This will be the new form of natural philosophy, which is the old name for physics, it is what is needed for the TOE. |
Again great thoughts from you Guille!
I agree with this, and I would like to add – I dont think that unified forces would lead to the TOE. At least not to the my definition of the TOE.
The main problem is that all this unification is based on our values of the constants (G, h, c) which are taken for granted. Similar is with evolution.
And since the science can get only 10^-43 after the Big Bang it is clear that we cant rely only on pure science, because I dont think science will ever get much closer.
All this results in some kind of the mistification of the Big Bang, and in theories that God created the universe, or how lucky we are to be here – since they are trying to explain why are the constants like this.
What they can do is to explain this particular universe better and better. More information about our Big Bang, our evolution.
But there is no "real first cause" in this explanations, no "being".
I think that is mistake to think that this evolution is something special, and this Big Bang and universe also.
I think that our universe and our evolution are just one of the billion of billions possible combinations in the „Big Lottery“. They are very ordinary on the great scale, but they are very important for our existence.
Tools I am planning to use are probability,chaos and some philosophy (since I have no choice if I am trying to go before the Big Bang- pure science is in stalemate position there).
I have to work this out better, but this is my main idea: real process of creation begins when virtual energetic potencial, or nothing if you like, faces a drastic transition. Nothing is not perfectly stable, and symmetry breaking occurs. This symmetry breaking can be represented by the Big Lottery – process in which constants (G, h, c) are randomly formed. All processes are governed by pure chaos.
I think that values of the constants are deductable to some finite intervals, since some limitations exists –
For example, maybe it could be shown, than under 10¹ºº times greater G then ours – universe would face the immediate Big Crunch –and hence immediate return to the nothing- and no matter how we try to „invent“ greater value of G- there is no more extra effect, no new states.
But surely there are billion of billions possible combinations and values of the constants.
And the rest of the explanation can be found in the probability theory +chaos.
And surely there are the universes without the stable proton, extremely uniform and lifeless, full of gigantic black holes, with hydrogen only ..etc – when the constants are different.
So, I could use here some kind of the weak antropic principle, which states that constants must be in a narrow band to allow the development of stars, life and very complexed life like humans.
But this is in universe in which we live, in which we are able to make the observation.
These sets of constants that could support life are just one small part of the possible outcomes of constants.
In a way , I could define a universe as a temporary and very short phase of the unstability of the virtual energetic potencial, or nothingness – which is nearly perfectly stable. A small distortion of this potential.
The proof for the unstability of this virtual energetic potencial is our existence. If it were perfectly stable- it would always stay like this and we would never be here. But we are here.
So I can conclude that this virtual energetic potencial has the capability and possibility to produce the universe and us.
This is my opinion about what was before the Big Bang.
And the return in the nothingness is inevitable, no matter what are the values of the constants. I think that this is in accordance with the entropy law.
There is no such thing as steady-state!
It is enough that something can happen- and eventually it will happen. So, even if the universe like ours, with the "proper constants" is very rare event - with the probability analogy it can be shown that this event will happen infinite number of times - since it seems reasonable that the return to the nothingness is inevitable - and we can apply the probability theory+chaos.
And similar things can be applied on the evolution. I think there are many tipes of evolution, many different paths, but our is probably most advanced and successful.
But there must be at least sillicon-ammonia molecules that are on a boundary between non-organic and organic - on other planets.
And there should be a huge number of carbon based evolutions- but with different amino-acids, and with different building blocks, higher rate of mutations, blind roads...etc.
This is partly testable in the future, because telescopes of the next generation could be able to detect the earth-like planets around the other stars, and they could be able to „see“ the chemistry and potential biology of this planets.
Note that these are just some basic thoughts, there are plenty more things to discuss here!
regards
Marko