Progressive Physics

 PSI Blog 20230626 Progressive Physics

 

The demise of the Big Bang Theory and its religiously flavored foundation will return theoretical physics to reality.

 

Theoretical Physics Needs a Proper Foundation.

Modified from photo by davide ragusa on Unsplash

 

Why is theoretical physics so important to humanity? Who cares? You do. It turns out that theoretical physics is the foundation for all of science. It tells us how our world works. It teaches us what is possible and what is impossible. It forms the battleground for the great struggle between science and religion, between determinism and indeterminism, between reality and fantasy.

 

But as natural products of our environment, we cannot escape our history—all that came before. Any idea we may have about how the world works had to come from somewhere. This is as true of theoretical physics as any other realm of thought. Even after the weening that took place during many of the struggles with traditional beliefs, extremely important remnants remain to haunt the scientific endeavor. As we have seen, the regression that began in 1905 was sponsored by powerful political and theological forces that, as always, found it necessary to instill and enforce the loyalty necessary for survival in a contentious world.

 

As absurd as theoretical physics has become during the last century, even 10,000 reformists have not phased the great behemoth. The Teflon-coated paradigm is still standing just like the politics and theology that promoted it. What is to be done? How does a major overhaul occur? How does the “Last Creation Myth” succumb?

 

Fundamental Assumptions

 

Correct thinking is based on a correct foundation. So, what should the proper foundation be? Kuhn gave us some hints. Just like a tower about to fall, we must examine its foundation. That is not the job of the person who built the tower. The examiner must be someone who has no emotional or financial interests in whether the tower survives or not. The folks who engineered the foundation of the Big Bang tower will not be hired to fix it.

 

Collingwood showed us the way. In the past, staunch empiricists, like the younger Newton, claimed to need “no stinking assumptions.” But that is all Newton and his followers in the theoretical half of physics ever did—surreptitiously. They used subconscious traditional presuppositions all the time, just like today’s cosmologists who invariably fail to admit they really are cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning). Collingwood’s answer was that we must bring assumptions, especially the fundamental ones, into the light of day. Regressives and reformists often make a point of doing just that for ordinary assumptions, but you will search high and low to find many who touch upon the fundamentals.

 

That is because fundamental assumptions are “metaphysical” and controversial. They go “beyond physics,” where we are admonished by the empiricists to never venture. Their motto is: if I cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste the external evidence, it does not exist. Who could in any way sense whether the universe is finite or infinite? If 13.8-billion-light-years distance, 20 trillion galaxies, and an infinite number of unique snowflakes are not enough to assume infinity, then what is? The answer is: nothing. According to Collingwood, fundamental assumptions never can be completely proven and they always have opposites. Infinity and finity have that status. Logically, if one of these is correct, then the other is false. Once you fully realize this, once you assume infinity, you have arrived at the door of progressive physics.

 

Behind that door are some additional fundamental assumptions that fulfil Collingwood’s criteria. Over 40 years ago, I used my then half-vast experience in science to come up with 10 assumptions that qualified. These were all consupponible, that is, if you can assume one, you can assume all the others without significant contradiction. That was Collingwood’s third criteria for fundamental assumptions. This “constellation” was just what was needed to right the ship of theoretical physics and to dispose of its most embarrassing offspring the “Big Bang Theory.”

 

I chose those ten assumptions for pedagogical reasons. You may be able to think of others that fit the criteria, but I doubt it. In any case, I have no doubt these are the ones that will take down the Big Bang Theory and most of relativity with it. They form the “proper” foundation for a complete revamp of theoretical physics. They underlie all I have done in “scientific philosophy” since. I call it that, because it is prescriptive, not descriptive like the “philosophy of science” I have been observing for decades. That discipline is mostly about the history of what scientists have believed in the past. It was totally ineffective in preventing the ravages of relativity and cosmogony.

 

Now for a word of caution. If, after thoroughly understanding each of the ten assumptions, and you still have trouble assuming one of them, I suggest you do some rereading. Also, things might appear clearer if you understand the opposing assumptions better by reading “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity.” As with all foundations, we need to get things settled before proceeding. The time for debate expires once the cement is poured. We must regard the Assumptions of Science as we do axioms in modern logic and math: As premises or starting points for reasoning. Progressive physics then follows logically from the ten assumptions as deductions no longer up for debate. 

 

You get the flavor of progressive physics by reading the books mentioned on scientificphilosophy.org. Ch. 16 in “Infinite Universe Theory” has quite a few details. Then, of course, the whole deal is in "The Scientific Worldview," my magnum opus on univironmental determinism, which is both the scientific worldview and the universal mechanism of evolution.

 

If you are really, really serious about getting on the progressive bandwagon you might want to start by reading and understanding "The Ten Assumptions of Science." The free pdf has been downloaded almost 8,000 times. BTW: I found it helpful to memorize and repeat this 20-second pandemic mantra:

 

“1. Materialism 2. Causality 3. Uncertainty 4. Inseparability 5. Conservation 6. Complementarity 7. Irreversibility 8. Infinity 9. Relativism 10. Interconnection.”

 

As my grandmother from Hamburg used to say: “And don’t you ever forget it!”

 

Here is the complete listing of The Ten Assumptions of Science:

 

The First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not)

 The Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes)

 The Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything)

 The Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion)

 The Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)

 The Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things)

The Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible)

 The Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions)

The Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things)

The Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion)

 

In formal logic, if axioms, postulates, premises, and assumptions are assumed to be correct, then the deductions formed from them also must be correct. Such is the beauty of axiomisation.

 

Of course, there isn’t room here for much of an explanation of what “progressive physics” amounts to. The details are in our books, papers, Blog posts, and essays. I only can summarize a few of the highlights and important deductions:

 

Philosophy

 

My philosophy is called “univironmental determinism” (UD) (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). In addition, it also happens to be the universal mechanism of evolution. The first mechanism of evolution was Darwinism, natural selection, which is what we call a “macrocosmic mistake” because of its overemphasis on the environment. The second was “Neo-Darwinism,” which included genes. That was somewhat more balanced, but only suited to biology and even then, did not include the rest of the organism.

 

Method

 

My methodology is called univironmental analysis. That is performed by considering XYZ portions of the universe as “microcosms.” All microcosms contain what are called “submicrocosms” and all microcosms are surrounded by a “macrocosm” containing “supermicrocosms.” Supermicrocosms can be infinitely small to infinitely large, with the most important generally being nearby. Unlike the current scientific world view, systems philosophy, I consider the outsides of things to be just as important as the insides of things. You can see why this method begs a conception of the universe as infinite. We deduce from materialism that a microcosm or macrocosm filled with nothing at all is impossible. The required perfectly empty space is imaginary, an idealism assumed possible by religion, but not by science. Especially, if one assumes interconnection, nonexistence is impossible.

 

Here are a few more deductions, with the most pertinent assumptions in bold italics:

 

1.    The universe consists of only two basic phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. (materialism + inseparability + infinity)

2.    Causes result from things colliding with things per Newton's Second Law of Motion. (causality + infinity) In other words, if you have identified an effect, you better look for the thing that did the colliding that produced that effect. If you cannot find one, you better hypothesize one anyway. Unlike regressive physics, which is philosophically sloppy, we call that a theoretical necessity.

3.    Anything that exists is a portion of the Infinite Universe and therefore has XYZ dimensions. (infinity)

4.    There are only three dimensions. There is no empirical evidence for extra-Euclidean dimensions. (infinity)

5.    The motion of matter does not exist; it occurs. (inseparability)

6.    Time is motion; time does not exist; it occurs. (inseparability)

7.    What makes this constellation of fundamental assumptions different from all others is the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). [The infinite divisibility of the universe implies no XYZ portion of it is without matter.] (inseparability)

8.    Infinity implies the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). With the universe being infinitely subdividable, no two collisions can be identical. That is why repetitions of any experiment are never identical. It is the reason for the plus or minus we must include for any set of similar measurements.

9.    Because causality is infinite there always will be contributing collisions that produce effects unknown to us. This is why neither classical mechanics nor quantum mechanics never can produce perfect accuracy and perfect precision

10.     Causality is the correlative of uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). Measurement variations and statistical probability are indications of our ignorance of collisions unseen. It is not an indication of some magical “chance” as portrayed by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Neither is it a sign of acausality, miracle, or of the involvement of some imaginary being.

11.     Matter-motion terms represent calculations. For instance, momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc² or ½ mv²) do not exist or occur. What does exist is the matter (represented by m) and what does occur is the motion (represented by v). Thus, dark energy, the assumed “cause” of the Big Bang does not exist or occur. It is just one of the 20 ad hocs used to save the Big Bang Theory. (inseparability + materialism)

12.     Gravitation is an acceleration. Therefore, it must involve collisions caused by unseen particles. Because gravitation is unaffected by aberration, the colliding particles must be local, becoming decelerated and entrained around baryonic (ordinary) matter in the process. (causality + interconnection)

13.     Aether is responsible for the formation of baryonic matter, the transmission of light, and gravitation as suggested in 1644 by Descartes. (infinity + interconnection + causality)

14.     The opposite of creation is conservation, not evolution.

15.     The cosmological redshift is a distance effect due to the imperfect reproduction of light waves. (relativism)

16.     Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory” assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. None of these requirements is possible. (inseparability + interconnection)

17.     Wave velocity is controlled by the medium through which it travels. Particle velocity decreases over distance. Light velocity does not; therefore, light is a wave, not a particle. (inseparability)

18.     Aether pressure increases with distance from Earth, causing light velocity to increase. With frequency remaining unchanged, wavelength increases distally, producing the misnamed “gravitational redshift.” Proximal aether pressure decreases due to aether deceleration during collisions with baryonic matter that produce gravitation. (causality)

19.     Einstein’s “gravitational waves” are shockwaves traveling through the aether at the same velocity as light. They have nothing to do with gravitation or his imaginary “space-time.” (interconnection + infinity)

20.     There is no such thing as “gravitational or magnet attraction.” No true pulls occur in nature; all events are the result of pushes per causality.  

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”