This page will record developments and discoveries, as well as comments and statements made by experts, past and present, that at least question the current mainstream cosmological hypotheses, whether or not they support my hypothesis that the world we perceive is dynamic patterns of space. For further details about my hypothesis please follow the links in the side navigation panel.
 |
 |
In December 2011, a group of professors from America’s top philosophy departments, including Columbia, Yale, including Professor Maudlin of NYU, set out to establish the philosophy of cosmology as a new field of study within the philosophy of physics. The group aims to bring a philosophical approach to the basic questions at the heart of physics, including those concerning the nature, age and fate of the universe. The group has recently been joined by a group of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom.
Professor Maudlin was asked by Ross Andersen about the objectives of the Philosophy of Cosmology. His interesting and refreshingly open responses are reported in The Atlantic.
|
Schematic of experimental set-up.
Click image for larger view.
The researchers were:
C M Watson, G Johansson, A Pourkabirian, M Simoen and P Delsing: Chalmers University of technology
J R Johansson: Advanced Science Institute, RIKEN
T Duty: University of New South Wales
F Nori: University of Michigan and Advanced Science Institute, RIKEN
|
On 17 November 2011, NATURE magazine published a Letter entitled, ‘Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit’. ScienceDaily picked up the article and published a plain English version on 18 November, entitled ‘Light Created from a Vacuum: Casimir Effect Observed in Superconducting Circuit’
Another report from technology review entitled ‘First observation of dynamical Caismir effect’
What does it all mean? The researchers have used a super-conducting quantum interference device (SQUID) to create the effect of a rapidly moving mirror that turns virtual photons into real ones. This is the first experimental evidence of the dynamical Casimir effect. In other words they have demonstrated that the quantum foam actually exists. These vacuum fluctuations may have cosmological significance in that they have a connection with “dark energy” which is thought to drive the accelerating expansion of the universe.
From my own point of view it is proof not only that the quantum foam is space, but under the right conditions energy may be released from the foam.
|
Schematic of experimental set-up.
Click image for larger view.
The researchers were:
V M H Ruutu, M Krusius and Wen Xu, Helsinki University of Technology; V B Eltsov, Helsinki University of Technology and Kapitsa Institute of Physical Problems; G E Volovik and Y G Makhlin, Helsinki University of Technology and Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics; A J Gill, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College and T-6 Theoretical Division, Los Alamos national Laboratory; T W B Kibble, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College; B Plaçais, Laboratoire de Physique de la Materière Condensée de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure.
|
‘Vortex formation in neutron irradiated superfluid ³He as an analogue of cosmological defect formation’ is the title of a Letter to NATURE magazine published on 25 July 1996. You can find it here, but you will need access to NATURE to read the full Letter.
From the Abstract of the Letter to NATURE:
Topological defects formed during a rapid symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early Universe could be responsible for seeding large-scale structure, for the anisotropy of the microwave background radiation, and for the predominance of matter over antimatter. The theory describing this cosmological phase transition is formally analogous to that describing the transition to the superfluid state in liquid ³He, so that in principle the process of cosmological defect formation can be modelled in the laboratory.
From a long article entitled ‘Vortices in rotating superfluid ³He’, go here. A short section:
This behavior allows investigations of general principles, such as topological stability and confinement, nucleation of singularities, and interactions between objects of different topologies. These methods are applicable, for example, to the new and rapidly developing fields of unconventional superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation of atomic gases. In addition, there are promising analogies to quantum field theory, elementary particle physics, and cosmology.’
|
|
John Archibald Wheeler invented ‘quantum foam’, which is, ‘made up not merely of particles popping into an out of existence without limit, but of space-time itself churned into a lather of distorted geometry’ (1998, page 149).
In more detail, the expression ‘quantum foam’ describes the phenomenon of ‘particles popping into an out of existence without limit’ at distances in the order of the Planck length, 10-35 metres. Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, at that scale particles and energy are able to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws.
This overcomes the problem of getting something from nothing. More about that here.
|
|
In a 1998 paper, Frank Wilczek said, ‘. . . the modern theory of elementary particles, we learn that empty space—the vacuum—is a deeply structured, though highly symmetrical, medium. Dirac’s sea was an early indication of this feature, which is deeply imbedded in quantum field theory and the Standard Model [. . .] I believe that the upwardly heritable principles of locality and symmetry, together with the quasimaterial nature of apparently empty space, together underlie most and possibly all of the remarkable modern analogies between our theories of microcosmos and macrocosmos (page 13, my italics).
More recently, from The Dartmouth, published Friday, 7 May 2010
In his Thursday 6 May lecture “What is Space?” Frank Wilczek, 2004 Nobel laureate in physics, said, ‘Space is the primary ingredient of physical reality.’
He went on to add ‘We’re in a very special moment of history, because we are like fish who finally realized we were living in water.’
The full text of the article is here.
|
 |
In his book, The Shape of Space, Graham Nerlich had this to say,
‘This book is about two main philosophical questions: Is space something or nothing? If it is something, what is its structure? My answer to these questions is that space is a real, concrete thing.’
|
|
Paul Dirac’s hypothesis that led to the discovery of antimatter in the form of the positron, or ‘negative electron’, the ‘Dirac sea’, is a theoretical model of the vacuum , which included a ‘sea’ of such fluctuations of negative energy (Jacob, 1998: 51). Other references make clear that Dirac’s ‘sea of fluctuations’ was a fluctuation of the ether, for example, ‘. . . with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether’ (1951: 906).
|
|
|
In a lecture he presented at Leiden (Leyden) University on 27 October 1920, entitled ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity’, in the closing paragraph Einstein said:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
The first sentence in this quote is ambiguous in that Einstein first says ‘space is endowed with physical qualities’, which seems to mean that space itself has the properties. This would agree with my hypothesis, however, in the second part of the sentence he says, ‘in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.’ It is not clear whether he means that the ether is space itself or in space? Thinking that the translation might have created the ambiguity I had it checked in the original by a native German speaker and language teacher, whose translation agrees with the one from the Einstein archives. If Einstein had been unambiguously understood to mean that the ether is space, his words would surely have provoked many active research programs into the idea, but there is no record of any.
The English version is here: and in the original German here.
And again in 1924:
Therefore, instead of speaking of an ether, one could equally well speak of physical qualities of space. Now one could take the position that all physical objects fall under this category, because in the final analysis in a theory of fields the ponderable matter, or the elementary particles that constitute matter, also have to be considered as ‘fields’ of a particular kind, or as particular ‘states’ of the space.
|
As with all philosophy, this is a journey of inquiry; enjoy the journey!
|
|
.jpg)
