Since the creation of my idea concerning the non-conserved phase of the early universe, scientists are starting to realize, only just in recent articles that there is now a growing mathematical evidence that the universe most likely went through a phase (ie. The universe did not happen spontaneously, it appears from a series of complicated phase transitions that (may be) cyclic in nature).
Certainly, my own model could satisfy that, which is why I never disliked Penroses idea's, I just disagreed with his approach. I do find it interesting though, that before this became fashionable, I was writing on these types of phase transitions so that we could
1. Explain why the notion of energy cannot be created nor destroyed as only a classical concept.
2. The universe is not just a classical system, obeying the characteristic laws we see on an everyday basis. It has a more fundamental connection to quantum mechanics, which makes the classical laws look as though they are approximations to a much deeper understanding of non-conservation, leading to a diabatic universe.
In a conversation on facebook, a poster wrote a comment concerning a quantum experiment which (as most headlines of scipop articles tend to do), exaggerated what the scientists found. I refer, to the Wheeler Delayed Choice and including that which is an age-old question for modern physics, ''does reality exist when not looking at it?''
First of all, the conversation on the creation of energy as a quintessential element to a unification theory - the conversation went like this, word by word:
Gareth Meredith: Its a very good question, not enough people understand it. In fact, the conservation of energy is a classical concept, quantum field theory violates the energy conservation all the time, just for very short periods. This is how energy came into existence, it had to happen as a short non-conserved phase of an early universe - the real question was if anything existed before this non-conserved phase? To have such a concept, at one point in the universes history, it can easily be argued that energy is created and destroyed all the time, in fact, in quantum field theory is all about non-conservation, it just happens for a very short period of time.
Joni Joni Energy is neither created nor destroyed?
Gareth Meredith Again, this is not true. That statement above is a classical concept.
Joni Joni You know I am a student and learned that energy neither created nor destroyed
Gareth Meredith: I didn't know you are a student - but what you have done is learn a little bit about why classical physics is an approximation, whilst the universe itself is a quantum system. We are quantum systems, and quantum mechanics does allow the creation of energy and can destroy it just as simply. We use what is called creation and annihilation operators, which is the ''quantum language'' of something far more significant than the classical ham that people tend to parrot.
Then another poster talking about the delayed choice experiment, noting that the scipop article seems to be saying we are shaping the universe by looking into the distant past:
Graham Croucher: Gareth Meredith Yes, I have sympathy with that view. The apparent subjectivity we impose on something simply by looking at it, may be due to some fault in our reasoning.
Gareth Meredith: Well, it goes back to archaic belief systems like, the sun and all heavenly bodies rotated round the Earth, and for some reason, scientists have still not quite got past this whole ''we are important so that everything can exist.'' Everything exists because we are important, now that's a different but much more interesting concept.
But it is still probably a very essential question, but we are not special in the sense of observers. Particles where interacting long before any conscious entity existed to notice such things. Unless you believe in a god. The retrocausal effect of creating something now by observing the past is related to the creator of that theory, the Wheeler delayed experiment.
And I continued:
Gareth Meredith: But whether it means there is no objective reality, that's just a load of rubbish, for if there was no objective reality, then there would be nothing to observe.
I am personally starting to get more faith in science, but it first has to admit it's mistakes, including people who think they know a lot but actually do not and in a way these people are holding physics back by keeping in line with absolutist ''facts.'' But my faith has been restored and now with the growing evidence, I intend finally to get my pre-big bang, diabatic phase of the universe as a correction principle to Penrose's cyclic universe theory. I noticed a while back there was one inconsistency with his proposed model and that was, that his cyclic model is not entirely symmetric, the distant past was much more dense than the final radiation phase. I haven't seen this discrepancy mentioned before, but I find it curious that he has not even attempted to explain it... maybe he was aware of it, but doesn't quite have an answer yet?
Either way, the scientific community appears to be, in the words of Frankunfurter, ''wising up.''
Edited by Dubbelosix, 29 April 2019 - 05:04 AM.