(Permalink)(Was chapter 30 in version 1)
The purpose of this fourth part on physics is to see in which extend our metaphysical system can predict the laws of physics of our universe, or at least pose some constrains on the possible laws of physics. This would allow to check if it can be used as a basis for physics. We cannot deny that our physical universe is a self-generation process: it obeys to rigorous physical laws, each event being the result of past events and the cause of future events. But we shall see that we can go further, as there are a lot of facts compatible with it being a logical self-generation process, without the need for some mysterious underlying «matter» making it magically more «real» than a vector space or a dream. Our metaphysical hypothesis is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, and only with it. This interpretation says, against our daily life intuition, that, when a single electron is diffracted between two slots, and passes by the two slots in the same time, then it is useless to search for «something» hidden and unobservable which would «anyway» pass by only one of the slots. The metaphysical system in this book says that there is really nothing which would make the electron «material» and force it to pass through only one slot.
(Added September 2018). I think that, despite the refusal of metaphysics by mainstream science, most scientists are aware that Relativity and the Copenhagen interpretation question the very bases of the notion of physical existence (of spacetime and of matter respectively). But few dare to go until the conclusion. This is what we are going to do in this part.
(Permalink) Quite simply because there were serious mistakes in the first version. The main was about Einstein's relativity: I based my reflection on what we find into science popularization reviews: incomplete descriptions, «simplified» parables which become «oh la la it is complicated» when we come to the point. In these false descriptions, if we represent a distance-time diagram, two objects moving at different speeds make two straight lines with an angle. But if we add speeds, the angles add too, until we find one of the objects moving backward in time! This implied that the relativistic universe would be a vast temporal loop, making it incompatible with the self-generation process. So I uselessly spent half of this part trying to reconcile the two points of view.
Happily, correct science data is more available now (2011). But it is with speaking with real scientists in Second Life («Science Center» group) that I understood: from the point of view of a given object, another object running at a different speed, not only has a trajectory forming an angle with the first, but in more this object appears crushed. So that the angles do not add without a limit, and we easily find the equations of restrained relativity. But we especially find the maximum speed of light for any object, and any event depends only of other events which happened in the past. We shall see these events in an order which may depend on our point of view, but basically physics still obey to the cause and effect law, knitting the fabric of space-time, as explained in chapter III-4. So, modern physics really says that our physical universe is a self-generating process (iteration series), making it straightforwardly compatible with our metaphysical view of a logical self-generating process, without requiring anything else.
The first version was also somewhat confuse on some points, so I seized this occasion of presenting these points on a clearer and more concise way. But especially, this new version contains new elements, such as the chapter on the artificial creation of laws of physics, a thing about which it was still scientifically difficult to speak in 2000. Although I was already clearly aware that the whole theory of the logical self-generation process includes and explains the creation of the laws of physics.
(Permalink) There is a fashion today of creating «alternative physics» with more of less barmy or unrealistic hypothesis. When these theories are rebuffed, their authors accuse the mainstream scientists of censoring them, and other conspiracy stuff. Of course I carefully step away from these pseudosciences. This books is not to present some «alternative physics», it is based on today physics. It does even not question mainstream physics, which is probably today the most exact field of all the human knowledge. And if this book differs of official physics, it is clearly me who is mistaking.
We must however be aware that any new theory, not yet examined, attracts sociopaths, who see here an occasion to do their inquisition, in the name of their arbitrary «social norms». So there is much to bet that some will scream at pseudoscience while reading these lines (or, most probably, without reading them). These pitiful reactions are of no interest, and I encourage all the readers to go directly to the next step, the objective examination of my work, the only thing able to assess the scientific statute of these theories. And if nobody else did it before you, then the responsibility of doing so falls on you.
But mainstream science, from its very functioning by try and mistakes, also produces daring or speculative hypothesis, which sometimes show false. Let us quote the branes (note 73), the string theory, the hidden dimensions, the return of the Velikovsky ideas on planets bumping on each other, the supersymetry, etc. These theories are not barmy, they even are likely, but they are speculative, based on statements which are today unchecked, and probably most of them will be disproved and slip into oblivion, like the aether or Schiaparelli's channels. Well, if any of them proves true, it will not change much this part. But, waiting for this, I prefer to base my reflection on the most proven pillars of today physics:
-General relativity, which is today proved with an accuracy eliminating any competing theories
-Quantum physics, Copenhagen interpretation, which was never proved false.
The only difficult point is the apparent incompatibility between these two. We shall see a possible solution to this in chapter IV-8.
In cosmology, we need some more elements:
-The Big bang, starting from a single point. It is perfectly compatible with the notion of «creative absurdity» as explained in chapter III-3.
-The inflation, which cause is today unknown, but scientists posed this hypothesis to explain some features of the early universe. We shall see in chapter IV-10 that we may not really need unknown causes.
-The dark matter, and its related difficulties. I propose possible explanations to this in chapter IV-10.
If I do not question the basis of modern science, I however allow myself to discuss some points which are not well established. But this is the normal process of science reflection, based on reasoning and checking.
Well, I am not a high level specialist, so I may do some mistakes, I apologise for this. But maybe my intuition may grasp some things that rows of equations cannot.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.