FOUNDATIONS OF physical COSMOLOGY
ANIL MITRA, COPYRIGHT © FEBRUARY 2016 – July 2016
FOUNDATIONS OF Physical COSMOLOGY
Light blue text is detail, secondary, andor about the main text.
Modern physical cosmology—the big bang—has the following incompleteness:
The aim of this document is to explain why or how the universe is the way it is. The main focus is on the physical. Life and experience (mind, consciousness) are a secondary focus.
The immediate purpose of the document is to provide foundation and detail for the account in the way of being.
The present document is a template for investigation. The outcome of the investigation will be merged with the preliminary investigations in the way of being.
The progress is tentative. An outline explanation is already accomplished in the way of being. This document suggests directions of study.
This section is about origins within the entire universe—from the void, transient background, and any other cosmoses. For local origins—i.e., within the context of the big bang cosmology—see origin and evolution in the big bang model.
For a brief treatment of the following, see the way of being: pocket edition.
Until meanings are established ‘material’ is to be taken metaphorically, and ‘experiential’ approximately.
Fact of necessity and sufficiency of
Extension and duration in coordination of the world, and
Matter and mind with regard to constitution of the world (kinds of being).
Focus: IDENTITY, EXTENSION and FORM; DURATION and PROCESS; and RELATION and INTERACTION.
Interaction entails force and matter (being as such); and experience (interiority of related being) and experienced. Dynamics is process as a function of being in relation.
Dual explanation of matter and mind is necessary on any monist ontology, probable on a near monism, impossible on any strict dualism.
In any robust but not necessarily substance ontology, mind must have form. In the universal metaphysics—a non substance and absolutely open ontology—inert form and conscious form may arise separately but when they do so they can and will interact with the occasional outcome of a near substance ontology.
What is the proportion of such populations to the universal populations? An approach to this question now follows.
Explanation is in three parts
This outline explanation is filled out in the section, some explanations.
The large scale form and dynamics of space, time, matter, non-gravitational forces and radiation as given by general relativity (GR). Foci include (1) Interaction of space, time, matter—that space-time is immanent in the material… that space, time, and matter are dynamically interactive, (2) The nature of the material or physical—matter and / or radiation and mass-energy equivalence, (3) Interpretation of curvature of space-time as gravitation, (4) Other details of relativity that help complete its interpretation and / or are pertinent to the aim and purpose, (5) Conservation laws, entropy and possible sources of order, e.g. intense gravitation, (6) Homogeneity with heterogeneity—e.g. uniformity of particle properties and physical law, and large scale uniformities and non uniformities.
This section is about origins and evolution of the cosmos so far as can be inferred from the big bang model. For a universal perspective see being and becoming in the universe.
Quantitative-qualitative evolution from a dense, near uniform, highly interactive configuration to the present structure. Interactivity as responsible for near uniformity of particle properties and laws.
We are almost certain that there was a big bang but what we know does not go back further and We have no accepted explanation for the way the early universe was, e.g. a super-dense, near uniform, intercommunicating, low entropy state.
We find assertions that there is no ‘before’ the big bang. But that is just an explanation—unsatisfactory as explanation except that it might (have been) the case. But it is not necessarily the case. And even if it was a local beginning of time it does not follow that there are no other partially isolated beginnings of time. Stephen Hawking argues that the empirical cosmos could be self contained. That does not mean it is self contained. And even if it is, it does not follow that there are no other partially isolated self containments and non containments.
Microscopic, i.e. elementary particle and atomic level, structure—and nature—of matter according to quantum field theory (QFT) and related considerations. Nature of the field and / vs. wave function. Implications for space and time. Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac, and other statistical behavior. Particles as Entanglement, action at a distance, coherence, decoherence, quantum vacuum and other phenomena pertinent to interpretation. Implications for space and time; connection to GR.
Quantum field theory—the Standard Model
This is mostly repetition from the introduction to small scale structure and process. Quantum description, laws, entanglement, coherence and decoherence, action at a distance… interpretation—particle-wave vs. field-singularity (or near singularity), quantum electrodynamics—the quantum field theory of photons-electrons-antielectrons, the standard model—quantum chromodynamics or field theory that also encompasses the other fundamental particles—its accomplishments and limits, reality in quantum mechanics, quantum vacuum, quantum and classical statistics—general / Bose-Einstein / Fermi.
To use quantum explanation wave function, operators, other as I = Identity. ΔI ΔT ³ h where I; varying ħ.
What are the known equations and solutions of the standard model?
Why do neutrinos have nearly zero mass?
Why are there so many particles? Why is the fermion-boson recipe repeated twice? Is it repeated only twice?
Why does are weak interaction field particles heavy bosons—and so propagate at speeds lower than the velocity of light? How is this related to the Yukawa potential?
Why are quarks and gluons never observed in isolation—i.e., why do their fields increase with distance?
How do gravity (Einstein’s theory), dark matter (accelerating expansion of the universe), and neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses) mesh with the standard model? Presumably this will require new physics on all sides (gravity, dark matter, and the standard model).
Do all particles of a given kind truly have the same mass? Certainly we tend to think so because of measurement and theory. But even a 1.0 Exp (-1.0 Exp 10)) variation—or even far, far less—is infinitely greater than zero variation. Could it be that not all electrons have the same mass? What could be the cause, effect, correlation? Is it some kind of preference for near symmetry over perfect symmetry or non symmetry? Is it associated with gravity and or dark matter?
The most effective explanation is likely to be one that reasons to all scales simultaneously.
Therefore a preliminary mesh, so far as possible, of the scales is desired. A beginning would be at an interpretive level—e.g., similarity and difference in interpretation of space, time, and matter across the scales.
To explain general relativity and quantum field theory. The semi-classical theory and its breakdown.
If space and time are forms of matter—as seen in the way of being: pocket edition—it stands to reason that the quantum and the relativistic may mesh.
For further discussion, see the next revolution.
We should first derive the general theory and then let the special fall out as a limiting case Special theory—the binding of extension and duration; general theory: the binding of identity, extension, and duration.
The residue of the balance between indeterminism and determinism or mechanism and non mechanism; and perhaps superposed indeterminism. Some points of interest (1) the classical limit of h/S ® 0 (group contraction) for classical systems (2) the opposite trend of large h in which what is now the meso-scale would show quantum behavior (3) evolution of Planck’s constant (ref 1, ref 2) (4) quantum phenomena such as entanglement and decoherence.
The microscopic and the macroscopic, physics and chemistry, inheritance and form; form and function
Origins of life, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, multi-celled organisms, the ‘kingdoms’ and species, complexity and intelligence.
Experience—mind, consciousness, etc: a first notion as subjective awareness. Generalization: experience as the ‘interior’ side of interaction or relation. Mind and matter as one. Necessity and sufficiency of this point of view. Receptive, pure, and active modes. Memory, perception, feeling, and thought, characteristic development and compositions (personality). Mind requires body; relation to space-time-matter. Pertinent phenomena of psychology and consciousness.
First notion—subjective awareness or experience. Receptive, active, and pure awareness. Threshold—on-off nature. Is the on-off nature an illusion? Is consciousness the source of agency or is agency subliminal (issue of mental causation and experiments suggesting that consciousness is not causal). Problem of physics and psychology—or mind and matter. In a monist ontology matter and consciousness are two sides of substance whose foundation is incomplete. In a dualist ontology the relation of mind and consciousness is categorially problematic. The only complete explanation can be a non substance ontology. Possible explanations of the above issues in a anon substance ontology. The maximal ontology—the universal metaphysics—and its proof. Explanations from this metaphysics. There is no attribute beyond matter and consciousness. Consciousness as fundamental in the universe. The highest forms.
Note—also see argument.html.
The following is fundamental but, being very general, is not particularly important to executing the aim and purpose of this document.
Fact and inference. Kinds of fact, doubt and indubitable fact; kinds of inference. Deduction as necessary inference, logic, and mathematics—including form and binary and higher degrees of quantity; metaphysics, given and precise fact, deductive (pure) and abductive (» pragmatic) metaphysical reason, metaphysics, emotion, and abductive imagination—non dogmatic religion; universal metaphysics as mesh of pure and pragmatic metaphysics; induction and generalization; and abduction (science) as hypothesizing, prediction and testing for effective or ‘best possible’ theory; science as pragmatic metaphysics.
Mind and form (body) as necessary and sufficient in the constitutive realm.
Extension (space) and duration (time) as necessary and sufficient in the realm of measure.
The essential principle of explanation is to place a given empirical cosmology in a larger context—e.g., origins from a primitive state (perhaps the void), situation in a background such as transient give and take among cosmoses and the void. Necessity of absolute to near absolute indeterminism and near determinism with near symmetry and near stability.
The explanation of origin and probable distribution of cosmological population begins with analogy with biology but also involves in showing necessity of some aspects of the analogy, appropriately generalized.
The standard is from the elementary (e.g. original, general, or constitutive) to the given (via temporal emergence, particularization, and elaboration).
Non standard explanation alters or inverts the direction of explanation. A combination of the standard and non standard may also be seen as non standard. However, non standard explanation is frequently present where it is often informal and not explicitly recognized.
Examples of non standard directions of explanation are from the presence of life and or mind to the cosmos – to the universe. This includes anthropic and cosmomorphic explanation.
Explanation by analogy—necessary, probable, or suggestive—may be seen as non standard.
If (1) Relativity removes absolute distinction of space, time, and matter; and (2) Quantum theory explains near determinate macroscopic form in terms of far from determinate microscopic form; and (3) Analysis of experience removes the Cartesian distinction between mind and matter…
Then the next revolution may found these features of substantial being in a realm beyond such being—a realm whose limit is the void. This realm will be one for which material form including the form of spacetime and matter will be less determinate than in general relativity and quantum field theory (GRQFT) and indeterminacy perhaps as much as that of the void. The ideal is for the theory of these immediate and ultimate realms to emerge together in unified form.
* Starred topics are suggestions
Built from (1) a picture of the cosmos as a whole and its significant parts, (2) and the previous sections.
There is little to no information. But the information is not zero. There is precisely one universe, there are beings, there is a void—the number has no significance—which has no natural laws. The consequence is the fundamental principle or FP that the universe visits every logically possible state.
To reason about origins of the contingent we need a more general background or context, e.g. many cosmoses. Does this entail regress? Not if we have the most general possible background. FP gives this. This background, the universal metaphysics, is necessary and sufficient to absolute explanation.
The explanation is, however, a framework. The actual processes are historical and are perhaps outside mechanism and mathematics. We should endeavor, however, to such description—first to the qualitative or, preferably the “binary”; and, second, to principles guaranteeing or allowing mathematical description, and third to such description where it may emerge.
If not outside mathematics but still outside mathematics accessible to human or ‘finite’ intelligence, there may be computer simulation.
There are transients from the void—They are not mere ‘difference’ but transient entities.
In the beginning there is no mechanism. Just transients and persistence, perhaps brief; the persistents are or may be named elementary bubbles / ‘atoms’ / puffs of being / monads with windows and perhaps an ever divisibility and integrability. Mechanism may arise but is not necessary.
Any cosmos in any of its states (e.g. ours) may be generated; via mechanism the most likely and productive (a balance) is an initial near uniformity; what ‘mechanism’ could give this? Note. Mechanism is not essential—the probability of any cosmos is 1. Still seek conditions for bubbles & growth. Importance of micro and macro manifestations. Balance stability-symmetry with growth and complexity (‘near’ symmetry).
The persistents form near stable near symmetries. How?
Void ® transient ® puff / bubble of being with but not just difference ® persistence or near stability due to near symmetry ® accumulation to dense state (vs. one off origins) ® communicativity and so near uniformity ® sameness-difference ® identity ® ‘emergence’ of complexity
® difference with identity: duration or translation in time
® difference without identity: extension or translation in space
® cascading identity for structure, stability, and connection to the void
One possible approach is to write something similar to the quantum formulation for a particle or a field.
I: Identity, R: Relation, E: Extension, D: Duration
IE = R(E, D), ΔIE(D) = RΔD
The wave function—interpretation and implementation.
This is a good reason to prefer quantum field theory as the fundamental theory of the microscopic.
Primary—to explain the early empirical cosmos.
Secondary—from the known history of the cosmos and its present state, to select essential features to be explained.
The following are repeated in the essentials of explanation that follow.
Detail of premise.(1) Experience, difference, identity and their relation to the following. (2) GR: space, time, matter, gravitation, and (non-gravitational) forces. (3) QFT and related theories: matter on micro and macro scales, issues of wave function vs. physical reality, entanglement and its possibility as ‘explaining’ gravity.
Stars or elements.
Selection rules for symmetries—longevity.
Selection rules for combinations—single puffs continue, one or a few kinds but ¯¯ for most.
Rules for spatiality—the initial grid will not measure distance: dimension and extension will be immanent via triplets…, color…
Other issues for rules—the rules will not be Markov. They will be a function of ‘coherence’, related, or other parameters—thus the rules, too, evolve. This is intended to simulate the coming into being of (a) interaction, symmetry, stability, determinacy of identity and process and (b) initial dense coherences and near uniformities.
Random (grid) – I, J | T | | ΔT | Join of singles and multiples
Conditions to emerge at Level 1
Level I, I > 0
Death vs. survival
Conditions to emerge at Level I + 1
Conditions to capture level less than I
Dynamics—dynamics, emergence, and capture
IE = R(E, D), ΔIE(D) = RΔD, etc.