| 
View
 

1-2  A Scientific Introduction

Page history last edited by Ian Kimber 3 years, 10 months ago

 

To be edited

 

1-2  A Scientific Introduction

 

Many people talk about a "Theory Of Everything"  and mean a complete understanding of all the laws of physics that define how our universe works.  This is in effect only part of the story.  A true theory of everything should include a reasonable model describing how and why these physical laws exist and how and why they work together to produce our universe, and any others if there are good reasons why they should exist.  This is what I will call "A Complete Theory of Everything"

 

Most modern approaches to a conventional or cosmology "Theory Of Everything" are very vague about the origin of universes and see the laws of physics as possibly being defined randomly.   This makes our universe appear very unlikely and therefore special in some way.  This is very unsatisfactory from a philosophical point of view because in the past all approaches that put us in a special place have been proved erroneous. 

 

Is it possible to have "A Complete Theory of Everything"?  Most current cosmologies based on observation and modelling quite understandably give up at the extreme ends of the life of our universe so any Complete Theory of Everything must always enter a certain degree of speculation but there may be ways of getting round this limitation.   If this is so it might be a good idea to give them some serious consideration.

 

Let me paraphrase my proposal.  A complete theory of everything would have, not only a good grasp of all the physical processes that are observable, it would also have a justifiable model for the creation and end of universe(s) and an explanation of how and why the physical laws we see in our universe have the relationships and fundamental constants have values that they do.

 

One scientific attempt to approach this problem has been made in the past.  That is Fred Hoyle's "Continuous Creation" Hypothesis.   This adopted the "Prefect Cosmological Principle" which states that the universe looks much the same everywhere and at all times. (even though it was expanding)  This aimed to create in effect a stasis in an expanding universe by suggesting that very small amounts of hydrogen appearing uniformly throughout the expanding universe could result in time in the replacement of galaxies which expanded out of observable range.

 

The opposition to this simple, but disprovable, idea created many proofs that our universe has in fact changed in time. This refuted this suggestion and drove innovative thinking for many years.  Currently it appears that our ideas are again getting bogged down in a vast array of possible models so maybe "knocking down" another simple hypothesis could help.  So here is something for others to have a serious think about.

 

The rest of this paper creates a plausible argument for a complete theory of everything as defined above and invites questions and comments.  

 

If you wish to have a cosmological principle that it obeys let us call it the Evolutionary Cosmological Principle it is:-

 

Our universe evolved from a "bulk"  of undefined energy and dimensions as a result of fundamental interactions in basic energy.  Many different sorts of universes may be appearing evolving and dying within this bulk either by random or a creative process within a universe if such processes existed there is a high probability that they would dominate the universes within this bulk of indefinite size, duration and dimensionality.

 

It is therefore probable that we have a “Living Multiverse”  in that, universes including our universe are created by a broadly similar universe, it has developed and changed through time and will eventually die away to silence and return to the bulk.  It is part of an indefinitely large multiverse of broadly similar universes all at different stages of this process.  During its life it will create many new universes many of which are broadly similar to itself.  All these are isolated from each other by event horizons

 

This does not of course also exclude the possibility of there being an indefinite number of vastly different sorts of universes and /or multiverses all developing and existing also isolated by horizons within this bulk.

 

     An important Note

 

I do not disagree with any of the current main stream results and thinking in any way but feel we might do better by standing back a bit from the purely mathematical coal faces of cosmology, string theory, quantum theory, information thery and so on and trying to put together a truly physical hypothesis based on putting everything we have in physics, cosmology, communications, and information theory together in a slightly different way.  This approach to thinking comes from my own personal experience of creating and stimulating innovative thinking in many other areas.

 

I am also not presenting this in any sort of anthropic principle justification all I am saying is that evolutionary processes lead to complexity and metastability like we observe in our own universe. Mankind just happens to be included in the way this process works.

 

Look at  1-1 A Philosophical Introduction   1-3 A Mathematical Introduction

 

on to  

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.