The Universe Quantum Physics Microscopic Universe
What Is Time? Determinism, Quantum Physics, Consciousness, Information…
– – –
Theory of the Universe
Copyright by Leonardo Rubino
Presented with author’s permission
Note: In this post we present fragments of few articles written by Leonardo Rubino.
Below each segment there is a link to the full article.
Points of weakness of the official physics
Neutrinos faster than light:
Right after that the news on superfast neutrinos from CERN and OPERA was given, I didn’t immediately agree with it:
There are also further comments and articles of mine, on this subject, in the web.
In the last weeks, it really seems that the news on neutrinos faster than light has been denied completely:
The dark matter:
Dark matter, especially in the last days, is not having a so lovely time: “Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories?”, at the following link:
All in all, I personally didn’t see different epilogues: http://www.altrogiornale.org/news.php?item.7662.8
And maybe already in the past the dark matter had some problems:
If you are interested in the scenario where dark matter is not only not plausible, but also useless, you could read again what is above explained, on my Oscillating Universe. I do not want to carry out comparisons on entrophy values across a Big Crunch, as with a Big Crunch every memory is destroyed and also space and time in it, as well as the physics on entrophy itself, are destroyed.
At last, I add something: if dark matter is mistake A, the change of Newton’s laws will be mistake B! And, after the dark matter, they will try to do this, too, instead of leaving their chairs to someone else.
And, in order to understand what’s going on with dark matter in the last weeks, here is what:…..
The particle of God:
The particle of God they are looking for by powerful means, should give mass to particles ( Definitely, maybe: Evidence grows for positive ID of Higgs boson ). Since the beginning, it’s not so clear as it could give mass to other particles and it’s also not so clear (at least to me) what is the mass of this particle of God itself. But even if such a particle is found and all what has been said on it is true, then we would have got rid of a little mystery (the origins of the mass of particles), but we’d also have faced a new and bigger mystery, that is the understanding why such a giving of mass occurs and exists. Let’s say that, according to the Occam’s razor, Higgs’ boson will make the Universe more difficult to be understood, in my opinion, rather than easier.
The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle whose existence is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. On 14 March 2013, a Higgs-type boson was tentatively confirmed to exist by experimental research at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), after the July 2012 discovery at the LHC of this particle as a previously unknown boson. In mainstream media the Higgs boson is often referred to as the “God particle,” from a 1993 book on the topic; the sobriquet is strongly disliked by many physicists, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism.
The cosmic ether:
A lot of years before A. Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, all the Universities, all over the world, were looking for the cosmic ether, as they thought the electromagnetic waves, and so also the light, should necessarily propagate in a mean, as well as for the sounds in the air. So, they supposed the space was filled with an extremely light and transparent gas, called ether, indeed.
And those Universities even gave very sharp values for the density of such an ether!
The Michelson and Morley experiment, made to prove the movement of the Earth through the ether, failed.
The question was solved in 1905 by an employee of the Patent Office in Berne, Albert Einstein, who suggested to cease trying to prove the movement of the earth through the ether, as ether doesn’t simply exist!
I add that dark matter we talk about nowadays, so strange, heavy, transparent and not plausible, will soon edn up like ether!
The “observable” dimensions of the Universe:
It’s about 46 billion light years and they say it’s so big as fastest objects ever seen, within the Hubble’s sphere of 13,5 billion light years, in the meantime have gone farther…; much farther. But objects must be kept where they appear, not where they think they should be, also because their gravitational and electromagnetic influences on us propagate and reach us by the speed of light and in a time of 13,5 billion years (age of their Universe), those influences must come from a 13,5 billion light years distance.
Relativity, as well as quantum mechanics, teach us that we have to trust in what the observer ascertains, not to what the observer guesses; otherwise, in the Twin Paradox, the twin brother on the Earth could rightly guess that the cardiac rhythm of the travelling brother is equal to his, so denying the existence of the time dilation. In fact, both twin brothers measure, on themselves, the same cardiac rhythm, but when one measures that of the other, due to the relativistic Doppler effect, gets different values.
Read more: http://www.openfisica.com/fisica/upload/documenti/9/leonardo_rubino/UGE.pdf
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IN THREE NUMBERS
Here are the three numbers, maybe magic ones, which describe our Universe.
Mass , radius and period (say, the age) of the Universe.
MUniv =1.59486×1055 kg
RUniv = 1.17908×1028 m
TUniv = 2.47118×1020 s
For the moment, let’s not ask ourselves where we dug them up. We say they have been revealed and now we test them.
Let’s see if there is a consistency between the Universe we see and that ruled by those three numbers.
UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING…DOES TALKING ABOUT NOTHING MAKE ANY SENSE?
Abstract: often, and especially in the recent days, there are theories suggesting a universe which appears from “nothing”; but does talking about nothing make any sense?
Moreover, is it possible to imagine a perfect nothing? We will see that it’s exactly in those questions that one can find the legitimation for the Universe and for the physical consistency of its existence.
As widely shown in my works on the web, when we talk about “nothing” with reference to the Universe and its possible origins, we must always take into account that we have to deal with the the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, from quantum mechanics. I cannot say an electron is exactly at a point with exact coordinates, as measurements of its positions.
100% certainty is impossible, as it would neglect the existence of the indetermination.
By the same token, to say a body has exactly the absolute zero temperature (-273,15°C) is unacceptable, as one would so say its atoms and its molecules have got kinetic thermal energy equal to zero, so saying that one has been able to measure a zero by a 100% accuracy, which is impossible for any instrument.
Moreover, we cannot even say before the Universe there was “nothing” (from which the Universe would be come out), as the act of stating the absolute nothing would be the same as saying an absolute zero has been measured (100%), that is something unacceptable and against quantum mechanics (somehow). Before, we were surprised by the appearing and the existence of the Universe; after the reasonings just carried out, we would start to be surprised by the existance of “nothing”, or by the concept of non existence itself, rather than that of the Universe.
Furthermore, the concept of “before” the Universe is meaningless, as if there was already something before, then we were not talking about the Universe at all; and time is part of the Universe and comes out with it, so a “before” was meaningless.
And so the concept of absolute immobility and of the (reaching of) thermal absolute zero are meaningless:
- if I want to check and so measure the immobility of a body, I have to interact with it, somehow, by illuminating it etc. and so I touch it somehow (also if just by a photon) so changing the immobility I wanted to check.
- if I want to read a thermometer to check if the inside of a refrigerator has reached the absolute zero, no sooner I illuminate the thermometer (also if just by a photon) to read it indeed, I heat it and it transmits some heat to the object supposed to be at the absolute zero kelvin, so spoiling that alleged absolute zero state.
And it’s also true that we cannot even stop touching what is surrounding us; for instance:
- if I don’t see the Moon, does the Moon exist?
My answer is yes, also adding that I cannot stop seeing the Moon, as also if I turn back, I still interact with the Moon, gravitationally etc (also this is a seeing).
In the description of the very early Universe, prevailing physics stops at the dot of minimal dimensions, a sub-Planckian ones, beyond which every supposition is meaningless, as all suppositions can be confuted by the opposite suppositions. So doing, the Schopenhauerian jump from the physics step to the methaphysics one is not taken, as I take it here, on the contrary. Let’s not forget, indeed, that the methaphysical need of the scientist and of the human being, in general, is unsuppressable, so that the physicist himself, through relativity, as well as through quantum mechanics, delegates the observer to the description of the behaviour of things, like if things had not only their own independent essence (with no links with the spark which lights us up and makes us observe), but also had another one, double linked to the first one.
The physicist is who knows all without being known!
If now we go back to the appearing of the Universe, through the appearing of particles and antiparticles (+ and -), a particle-antiparticle pair, which corresponds to an energy ?
E, is legitimated to appear anyhow, unless it lasts less than t (extrapolated from the Heisenberg Indetermination Principle); in other words, it can appear provided that the observer doesn’t have enough time, in comparison to his means of measure, to figure it out, so coming to the ascertainment of a violation of the Principle of Conservation of Energy, according to which nothing can be eather created or destroyed.
In fact, the Universe seems to vanish towards a singularity, after its collapsing, or taking place from nothing, during its inverse Big Bang-like process, and so doing, it would be a violation of such a conservation principle, if not supported by the above Indetermination Principle.
The appearing of a pair (+ and -) corresponds to the expansion of a small spring, while the approaching, one another, of the particles (+ and -), which is the annihilation, corresponds to the contraction and releasing of the small spring. The appearing and the annihilation, on a small scale, correspond to the expansion and contraction of the Universe, on a large scale.
And according to my previous works, published on the web, I proved that the atomic systems, made of particles + and -, and also the gravitational ones (such as the Universe) respect the Hooke’s Law, as chance would have it, so they behave as springs!
Therefore, in my opinion, the Universe is a big oscillating spring, between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch.
Someone wonders if the next Big Bang creates again an identical Universe (and so if we will be as well as we are now), but also if that were true, nobody could verify that, as with the Big Crunch every memory and every possibility of memory and of verification would be destroyed; so, we can only talk about one Universe, this one, here and now.
Then, if now we were in an expanding Universe, we wouldn’t have any gravitational force, or it were opposite to how it is now, and it’s not true that just the electric force can be repulsive, but the gravitational force, too, can be so (in an expanding Universe); now it’s not so, but it was!
The most immediate philosophical consideration which could be made, in such a scenario, is that, how to say, anything can be born (can appear), provided that it dies, and quick enough; so the violation is avoided, or better, it’s not proved/provable, and the Principle of Conservation of Energy is so preserved, and the contradiction due to the appearing of energy from nothing is gone around, or better, it is contradicting itself.
1) (L. Rubino) http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0087v1.pdf
2) (L. Rubino) http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0085v1.pdf
3) (L. Rubino) http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0082v1.pdf
Read the entire article (with some advanced physics):
LAWYER HUBBLE AND THE ALLEGED EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
Abstract: According to the official and prevailing cosmology, the Universe is expanding; galaxies (not all…) are mutually getting farther and the farther they are, the higher their speeds are and their redshifts are. The law by which all this happens is Hubble’s Law (Edwin Hubble, lawyer, astronomer and astrophysicist, 1889-1953). Any exceptions?
On the contrary, I more plausibly think that if matter shows mutual attraction as gravitation, then we are in a harmonic and oscillating Universe in contraction towards a common point, that is the center of mass of all the Universe. As a matter of fact, the acceleration towards the center of mass of the Universe and the gravitational attractive properties are two faces of the same medal. Moreover, all the matter around us shows it wants to collapse: if I have a pen in my hand and I leave it, it drops, so showing me it wants to collapse; then, the Moon wants to collapse into the Earth, the Earth wants to collapse into the Sun, the Sun into the centre of the Milky Way, the Milky Way into the centre of the cluster and so on; therefore, all the Universe is collapsing. Isn’t it?
So why do we see far matter around us getting farther and not closer? Easy. If three parachutists jump in succession from a certain altitude, all of them are falling towards the center of the Earth, where they would ideally meet, but if parachutist n. 2, that is the middle one, looks ahead, he sees n. 1 getting farther, as he jumped earlier and so he has a higher speed, and if he looks back at n. 3, he still sees him getting farther as n. 2, who is making observations, jumped before n. 3 and so he has a higher speed. Therefore, although all the three are accelerating towards a common point, they see each other getting farther. Hubble was somehow like parachutist n. 2 who is making observations here, but he didn’t realize of the background acceleration g (aUniv).
At last, I remind you again of the fact that recent measurements on Ia type supernovae in far galaxies, used as standard candles, have shown an accelerating Universe; this fact is against the theory of our supposed current post Big Bang expansion, as, after that an explosion has ceased its effect, chips spread out in expansion, ok, but they must obviously do that without accelerating.
Sometimes, someone says that for two parachutists who are perfectly parallel one another, there wouldn’t be any getting farther. Well, that’s a limit situation in which the exception proves the rule. In the Hubble’s Law for the expansion of the Universe, you cannot even number the numerous exceptions, as we are going to see.
Abstract: In this paper I will prove that oscillations are a basis for all the Universe, for all its essence and for all its existence. The showing up of a particle-antiparticle pair corresponds to the expansion of a small spring, while the next getting closer of those two particles in the pair, and its annihilation, is a recontracting and releasing of that small spring. The showing up and the annihilation, on a small scale, correspond to the expansion and recontraction of the Universe, on a large scale. And here I also prove that, as chance would have it, either atomic systems (made of + and – particles), or the gravitational ones (such as the solar system or the Universe itself) unequivocally follow the Hooke’s Law, so they behave like springs! Therefore, the Universe is a large spring which oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch.
The speed limit c is unjustified in the official physics of many universities.
In many universities, the speed of light (c=299.792,458 km/s) is an upper speed limit and is constant to all inertial observers, by “principle” (unexplainable and unexplained). Such a concept, as a matter of fact, is presented as a “principle” by them. The speed of light (c=299.792,458 km/s) is an upper speed limit, but neither by an unexplainable mystery, nor by a principle, as asserted in the STR and also by Einstein himself, but rather because (and still in my opinion) a body cannot move randomly in the Universe where it’s free falling with speed c, as it’s linked to all the Universe around, as if the Universe were a spider’s web that when the trapped fly tries to move, the web affects that movement and as much as those movements are wide (v~c), that is, just to stick to the web example, if the trapped fly just wants to move a wing, it can do that almost freely (v<<c), while, on the contrary, if it really wants to fly widely from one side to the other on the web (v~c), the spider’s web resistance becomes high (mass which tends to infinite etc).
Having the speed of light and not having a rest mass are equivalent concepts. In fact, the photon rest mass is zero and it’s got the speed of light, indeed. Moreover, it has the same speed (c) for all inertial observers. This peculiarity, too, is shown nowadays as an unexplainable and unexplained principle, but it can have clear explanations: first of all, the observer can carry out speed measurements by using the fastest thing he knows, the light, and this gives a first explanation of the constancy of c.
Moreover, the photon cannot be either accelerated or decelerated (constancy of c) because accelerating an object means fully interact with it, by catching it and throwing it again faster.
I’m here denying the possibility to really catch a photon; I give an example: if I catch an insect by a net and then I leave the net, I cannot still say I stopped the fast flight of that insect, as it could go on flying fast also into the net, so showing us that it cannot be fully caught. If now we go back to the photon, it cannot eather be absolutely caught by the matter, or accelerated; it is kept into the matter as heat, or orbiting around an electron or in whatever form you like, as well as forward and reflected waves (which are typically propagating) are trapped in a standing wave which is created by themselves when, for instance, you hit the free surface of the water in a basin!
Now, we carry out a reasoning which shows us the link between the Theory of Relativity and the collapse, indeed, of the Universe, with speed c.
A system made of a particle and an antiparticle, as well as a Hydrogen atom, and as well as a gravitational system, as the whole Universe is, behaves as springs which follow the Hooke’s Law. We already proved that in the previous pages.
Read the entire article here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0068v1.pdf
A COMPLETE TREATISE ON THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY WITH THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND GRAVITY FROM ELECTROMAGNETISM AS APPENDIXES
by Leonardo Rubino
Abstract: In this paper you can find a complete treatise on the General Theory of Relativity, starting from the basic geometry, through the Einstein’s field equations, to the calculation of the deflection of light by the Sun and of the precession of the perihelion of planets. Moreover, as appendixes, you will also find the Restricted Theory of Relativity and an explanation on how I see the Gravity (coming from) the Electromagnetism!
The General Theory of Relativity (GTR) is an extension of the Special Theory of Relativity (or Restricted) (STR) shown in App. 1; it was necessary for Einstein to explain the Gravitation. The word gravity reminds the word acceleration; in fact, we will see in Par. 2.1 that where there is an acceleration, rotation and gravity with a reference system, the metric is not simple anymore as in STR.
Moreover, the GTR explains gravity as a curvature of the space, or better of the spacetime (mathematic space-time, in the opinion of the writer) caused by matter (and by the energy!) which is in such space-time. It’s like when, for instance, you put a ball of lead on a mattress: around the sphere you have a funnel-like hollow and there, the mattress is curved. Then, we can say that in such an area where the mattress is curved is the gravitational field of the ball of lead. If now we throw a small ball over the mattress, and neglecting frictions, it will move uniformly on a straight line, over the flat side of the mattress until, as it approaches the curved hollow, it will fall towards the ball of lead.
Matter, in GTR, sees the space-time as a railway over which it can move; therefore, if this railway is curved, the trajectories followed by the matter will be curved.
Then, if the ball of lead is so heavy that it completely sinks into the mattress, then the funnel will become like a closed bag and we would call it a black hole, and from it nothing would come out, not even light.
In the GTR the Equivalence Principle holds, according to which a gravitational field can be cancelled by an acceleration and so it is not possibile to absolutely tell an acceleration from a gravitational field. In fact, let us consider the Einstein Elevator, in which a guy, standing stopped at a floor, rests with his weight on the floor of the elevator; if now we cut the cable holding the elevator, it will start a free falling in the terrestrial gravitational
field and the guy inside will float as if in a space ship where there is no gravity, as he is falling with the elevator and with its floor and this floor will always fall under his feet.
Therefore, an acceleration, that of the free falling, has cancelled the gravitational effect; and, at the same time, when the elevator is stopped, the guy inside it, instead of thinking that he was standing in a gravitational field (as he is resting on the floor of the elevator) could have thought that there weren’t any gravitational fields, but that the elevator was accelerating upwards, so pushing the soles of his shoes.
Through the example of the mattress we have just introduced the concept of the (mathematical) space-time curvature, caused by the matter/energy.
I personally think the force of gravity is a macroscopic force which is made of microscopic and electric forces among particles, positive and negative, which make the Universe, and that can be considered as randomly spread
Therefore, the attraction (/repulsion) particle-antiparticle, that is, the fast oscillations of the particle-antiparticle pairs, in composing together, generate the slow oscillation of theUniverse (Big Bang, expansion, contraction, Big Crunch). Now, we are in the era of the contraction, that is, the matter is contracting all towards the centre of mass of the Universe, and that’s why we see the actractive force of gravity every day, but hundreds of billion of years ago, when the Universe was expanding, the gravity was (as a consequence) repulsive-like (see still App. 2, as a support of all this), from which the similarity between the electricity (attractive and repulsive) and the gravity (also attractive and repulsive); “unfortunately”, when the Earth was born, the gravity already stopped to be repulsive a very long time before!
Read More: http://vixra.org/pdf/1204.0039v1.pdf
– – –
Copyright 2013 by Leonardo Rubino