|
Universe? Which universe? In spite of realizing that "observations are all we have" like Brian Greene does (The Fabrics of Cosmos, 2004), string theoreticians and alike continue to build monstrous space-time "realities" which, yes, fulfill the requirements of math used [130616] but otherwise fall into a realm of religion - you have to believe in their theories. In particular, theoretical physicists nowadays twist cosmology, well illustrated by the cartoon on the right, and some even dare to abandon philosophy [101031]. Aren’t they ashamed to tell us that they don’t know what ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ are but they can calculate the amounts?In a rare moment of retired physicist satisfaction, I read in The Economist (Aug 24th 2013) that Christof Wetterich of the University of Heidelberg, an active physicist of some standing, puts in question the Big Bang, expanding Universe, "dark" this and that, and other trivia of the current cosmology darkness. Encouraged, and in a continuation of my earlier Big Bang scorning [100627], here I summarize my convictions:The Universe is infinite and eternal. (The term ‘Universe’ used here has a meaning of ‘everything existing’ - and I would like to add ‘regardless of human perception’.) The Universe had no beginning, the Universe is uncreated and indestructible. The terms ‘space’ and ‘time’, used in our description of Nature, have no meaning for the Universe. We live in a subdomain of the Universe, let’s call it ‘Ourverse’, internal dynamics of which is currently distinguishable from the surroundings. It could be pictured as a percolation bubble in an otherwise perfectly homoge- neous and clean liquid, sort of cosmic percolation. However, careful there, the picture might be misleading because the percolation bubble in liquid could be spatially defined which is irrelevant for the Ourverse where the "phase transition" is only in the dynamics of matter. |
|
The Ourverse had a beginning, it will end, i.e. its dynamics will eventually become indistinguishable. So it makes sense to establish a timescale for the description of Ourverse’s "life". A periodic event comes handy as a time unit but the question remains whether a current unit, let’s say a second, has the same meaning in the first three "seconds" of Ourverse. So, careful there with expanding universe, accelerating universe...
Because only the dynamics of matter can be observed, not the matter itself, and our observing tools are of Ourverse dynamics type, our observing horizon is limited to Ourverse itself. The "dark matter" and "dark energy" of contemporary cosmology are measures of the interactions of Ourverse with the rest of the Universe. We might be smart enough to back-engineer the beginning of Ourverse - or we might not. We might be smart enough to reveal the interactions with the rest of Universe - or we might not. But whatever our knowledge will be, we have to keep in mind that so-called ‘Laws of Nature’, formulated by us, are actually laws of our thinking about Nature.
WEBSITE EDITOR:
Krešimir J. Adamić
