ABSTRACT

It is known that our current view of the Universe is not efficient for a full understanding of the natural phenomena concerning the origin and behavior of matter. In this paper we shall look into this view and show that, although in accordance with observation, it is inconsistent from the standpoint of logic. We shall introduce a new approach and from there help in the rising of a consistent theory which will be shown to be in contradiction with the former. As we go deeper in our inquiry we shall see that the inconsistency at the root of our current view (hence the difficulties physics faces today) arises from our lack of perception of a deeper phenomenon which must be in action under the appearance of the physical world, and that all observable phenomena is nothing but the consequence and reflection of this deeper phenomenon.

                 ==================================================================

                                      OUR CURRENT VIEW AND SOME COMMENTS

After observations with the Hubble telescope made it clear that the universe is expanding, came the realization that as one goes back in time the universe becomes denser. Therefore, there should have been a time in the past where the universe would have been infinitely denser. This point of infinite density (also called a singularity) must have caused a rapid expansion (an explosion). Hence, the Big Bang Theory. During the explosion somehow more matter was created than antimatter and after annihilation of the antimatter with equal amount of matter there was some extra matter left which gave birth to our universe.

Now, let us make up a bit of a sci-fi story which might be helpful in stimulating our imagination a bit and try to get an objective outsider view regarding the current situation. Suppose we were invited to an interstellar competition of universal knowledge and wisdom, and our contestant comes up with this account of how we think the universe must have started.

Say, the head of the jury wanted to inquire a little further:

-- Please, why do you think more matter was created than antimatter at the beginning?

Our contestant says, confidently:

-- Because otherwise there would have been nothing, since there exists a universe we conclude that somehow more matter was created than antimatter at the beginning, albeit there can be a swap between matter and antimatter, that is for convenience we name what's left as matter.

H.J.-- Why do you think there would have been no universe if there were equal amount of each ?

O.C.-- Because by definition they would annihilate each other.

H.J.-- How do you define antimatter ?

Now, that is the point. Our definition of antimatter does not take into account what logic and mathematics would require out of the starting conditions. We have no satisfactory reason to assume that more matter was created than antimatter. This is like trying to convince ourselves that for once and only once two plus two was not four (say; infinity=Infinity+4, infinities cancel out and we get 4 out of nothing). We rather need a logical explanation that 4 is the result of, say, 2+2.

We are trying to adapt theory to observation; which itself depends on our senses. We know that unlike logic and mathematics our senses can sometimes deceive us. We also need to take into account millions of years of conditioning of our senses during evolution. For all we know we could be like (imaginary) intelligent creatures that evolved in the sea and decided one day that there should be a great amount of salt in the sea, but could not find it.

What we know today as antiparticles can very likely be unstable particles, bearing in mind that the only way we can observe them is by detecting the tracks they leave before disappearing. And our belief that matter and antimatter will react (to annihilate each other) is perhaps inspired from the behaviors of magnets. Otherwise we have no good reason to claim that they would react to annihilate each other no matter what.

Since we have assumed by definition that there is no antimatter in the universe, our chances of testing it (to see whether it will react with matter like magnets or not) is denied from the beginning (putting the belief within the definition of a dogma). What if the assumption is wrong? What if there exist a natural factor (of which we are not aware yet) that keeps matter and antimatter apart, say due to a balance of some kind? It is one thing to say that matter and antimatter would annihilate each other in certain conditions, it is quite another to assert that they will annihilate regardless of the conditions. We are defining something that we do not know.

Our definition of antiparticles is that they are opposite in charge to corresponding particles. Some chargeless particles (like photons) are held to be their own antiparticles which violates rules of classification. In science of logic classification requires that species should not overlap. We also have no clear definitions (for instance, definitions with analogy) for charge and spin. So, it is very likely that there is a misconception here.

It is indeed not surprising that we have no solution because the equation seems  to be wrong from the beginning.  

We simply can not assume that the extreme initial conditions are responsible for the original inequality because that is not what observation (with telescopes) tells us. All it says is that the universe is expanding. It is wise to think that the universe would have been denser in the past and that perhaps there was an explosion, but assuming infinite density at the beginning seems like exaggerating things.

We are assuming that we would arrive at infinite densities where laws of physics would fail. And our reason for this is gravity, a law of physics. This is like saying a man can kill himself by holding his breath (which turns out to be impossible because as he drifts towards unconsciousness he will release his hold and start breathing).

It would be more logical to assume that perhaps there is a critical density where gravity itself would cease to function and lead to an expansion (lets face it we do not yet know what gravity is and if perchance it ceases to function one day we would not be able to tell why because we do not know how it works in the first place).

Einstein makes a nice analogy in General Relativity where he likens gravity to space-time curvature but, frankly, this is not very conceivable and the definition of curvature seems to have been stretched beyond its natural meaning in that it would be conceivable to talk about the curvature of a sea wave, say, or that of a hillside perhaps, but not quite so when it comes to that of space, without considering space itself as a physical entity and giving it a structure to which the adjective 'curved' can be applied. Perhaps, a more comprehensible explanation would be to consider this in the same pattern as, for instance, a whirlpool being likened to a water-time curvature whose justification would be found in the formulations derived from there that would describe its effects with great presicion.  

So GR seems to be an analogy with great precisions, but it also causes a contradiction by predicting that gravity, itself a physical law, would create conditions where all physical laws would fail (by causing singularities). Think of the much trusted formulas in our whirlpool analogy predicting that a whirlpool will suck the river and the riverbed and everything else around it. It is wise to consider getting a maelstrom but to predict getting a black hole would, again, be exaggeration.

There is also another point which needs to be considered. Putting aside the idea of antimatter for the moment (since it was offered merely to explain the extra solution found in Dirac's equation and a complete mystery ever since) and trying to make use of whatever is directly available to us (matter here), the observations with telescopes imply that there was an explosion (a rapid expansion) in the past. And it would be sound to assume that such an explosion happened due to high densities of matter. Now, to get high densities of matter we need matter to come together at one place (say due to gravity), and to come together at one place, we need matter to exists first.

In other words, to get a Big Bang we need matter to exist first, not the other way round. The same rules of logic that tell us there was an explosion in the past also tell us that matter should exist first to make such an explosion possible. We can not deny this fact simply because we can not back track the events.

Therefore, we must seriously consider some other origin for matter and start looking for it. We need a complete theory that will include (explain) the Big Bang as part of it.

 Again, if our new theory comes up with a clear definition of what antimatter must be, the current one should not stand in the way because it just can not be proven to be foolproof..

                                                A NEW APPROACH

1. Starting: The Initial Conditions

Bridge encourages careful observation and improves the memory, trains the mind to estimate probabilities accurately and to draw inferences from actual knowledge and marshaled facts, not to rest action on ignorance and guesses.
Badsworth

We start by assuming that there exist a final theory that could explain how the Universe must have started and why matter behaves the way it does. What we mean by final is that it is clear and complete enough as not to require further explanation. For instance, Kepler's theory that planets orbit around the Sun in elliptical orbits is final in that sense and we expect it to hold valid even in a thousand years. We further assume that this theory is within the scope of our understanding. In other words with our current knowledge of the world we will be able to understand it completely.

Now, we would expect such a theory to have its own standards:

1) It should be able to show a beginning.

In other words, this theory should start (to explain) from somewhere. This being necessary from the standpoint of clarity (a story that starts from the middle or somewhere near its end will not be comprehensible unless perhaps it turns back later to include a beginning). It is very likely that instead of a specific beginning and end, there is a continuous cycle of existence. In that case there should be a moment of rebirth (even if considered only for a local and isolated area) and such an instant of restarting will serve well enough as the beginning.

2) As the source for the Universe, it should not claim something which itself needs an explanation (to exist).

This would be a futile effort from the standpoint of finality. Therefore we ought not consider, say, energy or the Big Bang to be the source for the Universe because these would be inexplicable (their origin would be unknown).

Identification of these standards - against which a theory can be tested - not only helps us avoid useless attempts and futile efforts but also provide us with premises for an important conclusion regarding the nature of existence. For, if true, the above premises imply that :

3) There must have been only nothingness at the beginning.

This conclusion, however, seems to be in contradiction with two other known facts: that

 4) Nothing can come from nothingness.

and that                       

5) There exists a physical world outside our senses.

Therefore, it would seem that we are up against a paradox¹.  Indeed premises (3) and (4) can be used to refute (5).

Now we see why past schools of thought have offered that the world is an illusion of our senses and we also understand why today's scientist has long given up looking for logical consistency in his theories concerning the origin of the Universe.

However whether or not we accept it as an illusion of our senses, or give up looking for logical consistency in our theories regarding its origins, the world still does not make sense²; the pieces do not fit together. Indeed, philosophers and scientists (together with all other keen followers of reality) have tried everything they could think of throughout ages, regarding a final solution, in vain. It will be seen that the very reason the solution has not been discovered so far is because it is so incredible that it had to wait to be approached as a last resort.

First we should like to inquire for a clear definition of nothingness as it appears to have something to do with the origins of the Universe in our argument above. 

Definition 1.) The state of nonexistence

Definition 2.) Lack or absence of anything at all.

(From WordWeb)

It appears that by definition nothingness can not be shown to be a source for anything. However, also by definition nobody has yet witnessed a state of total absence. It is clear that our definition of nothingness is based on a generalization: in that it is safe to talk about, say, the absence of water in a pool, for instance,  as "nothing in the pool³", but how safe is it to generalize this? That is, can we refer to nothingness as 'total absence' ? For, to be able to talk about emptiness of a pool we need to have the pool first. In such wise, when we talk about the absence of something we mean the conditions in which that thing could exist but does not (its empty place). Therefore, we should be able to talk about nothingness only if we have dimensions. In other words; Condition of nothingness requires presence of dimensions (or volume).  

We thus conclude that nothingness and empty space must be one and the same. It will be infinitely helpful if (just for the moment) we think of nothingness as an empty cosmic depot where anything can be stored.

1 Known as the paradox of existence

2 Why should there be a world? We seem to have no satisfactory answer to this question.

3  Here, let us refer to an isolated pool (say in space) where there would be no air (or any other gas) rushing in with evacuation of water.

2.  Our Own Place In The Universe

Next, as the definer, we consider our own place in the Universe, and question our abilities before taking a chance at the task ahead.

We must bear in mind that our senses are mere tools of survival which we have acquired through evolution, and that they must have taken shape accordingly. How can the eye, for instance, see the true nature of light when the eye has evolved to perceive light in such a way as to make sighting of  the environment possible for survival (but not in a way, say, to augment the perception of its real nature instead).

Again, we must be aware of conditioning. Our species must have started and evolved on this planet, (in circumstances of planetary conditions, if you like), and we are bond to view the universe from such conditions. Let us not forget that we once believed the Earth to be flat and the center of the universe, because that was what direct (Earth based) observations showed us to be the case. Therefore great care must be taken in subjects likely to be affected due to such default conditioning. We think we know what nothingness is: simply the absence of all things that are known to us, but what if there were things outside our perception?

For, definition of nothingness seems to depend on the limits of perception of that who defines it, and anything beyond those limits would be invisible to the definer, lost forever in nothingness. Not being able to perceive what might be hidden there does not necessarily mean that nothing can come from there.

Let us show this in logical notation.

Now, there is a certain type of fallacy that logicians call False Alternative. Here, I quote from David E. Kelley's Art of Reasoning:

Here, to say “Nothing comes from nothing.” is another way of saying “There is nothing that we can not perceive.”

Let       N -------- > Nothing.                              A ------ > Anything (that may exist).  

            P -------- > Perception (of anything).

1.)     -P à N              Not perceiving anything means there is nothing.  (Man’s hidden

                                                                                                                             assumption.)

2.)      N à -A            Nothing comes from nothing. 

3.)     -P à -A            1, 2  H.S.   (There is nothing that we can not perceive.)               

Again, we have acquired our senses through evolution and these are mere tools that have enabled us to survive but they may not necessarily allow us to perceive all that is out there. In other words there may or may not be things outside our perception (we would not know it), but to assert one case or the other would be a fallacy.

Have we, in such wise, turned the barren and sterile into fertile ground or are we committing some kind of circularity here? Because, after all, nothingness was defined to be the absence of anything at all, whether that anything be perceivable to man or not. If man is not capable enough to identify nothingness, who is then? Well, how about Nature itself? For, it has a clear definition of nothingness expressed in its own language; that is the mathematical nothingness.

We shall, therefore, stay faithful to the mathematical definition of nothingness in the end, but let us just question our capabilities of perception here. Can there be something out there without us being aware of it? 

Indeed an elaborate consideration of the current situation (regarding the fact that we still do not understand Nature) suggests that we may not be perceiving the whole Natural Phenomenon but only parts of it (here I refer to an event that might be taking place right before our eyes without us being aware of it, causing all the mysterious phenomena).

Imagine how it would be like to try to understand, say, the Hydrologic Cycle without being able to perceive water. There would be mysterious forces and fields. In time we would be able to group together the similar parts and simplify them but we would never be able to understand the process completely. Not until someone made a good guess and claimed the existence of an entity (water) outside our perception with different states and a clear description of its behaviors.

It would be naïve to say that no such existence has been detected so far in any way, not even  with the most sophisticated apparatus of detection (such as used in Michelson-Morley experiment). Because, if in such way detectable it would already be known as perceivable.

What we are referring here is some possible existence at an imperceptibly minute scale in comparison to which even the smallest known particle today would be regarded as giant. For, even as Zeno had pointed out milleniums ago in one of his paradoxes, there is no limit in dividing, in other words there is infinity in smallness. Put on top of this some misconception in the behavior of such an entity (as an attribute of matter already described with equations etc.) it would not be totally impossible that such an entity escapes all kinds of detection.

If such is the case then it is clear that the only way to find the truth would be via thinking and logic guided guesswork not scientific experimentation (not without changing our opinion about the nature of the results that we achieve first). In other words, with a new explanation of the world all our experimental results may turn out to be logically predictable, unlike the current situation.   

One of the immediate implications of the above conclusion regarding nothingness is that the foundation of our world view may not be as stable as it is thought to be. Take, for instance, the conservation law which serves as a pillar in that foundation. Since energy and mass are held to be the same, let us refer to it as the conservation of matter alone for simplicity.

According to this law in an isolated system the amount of matter is constant. In other words matter can neither be created nor destroyed. There seems to be two independent premises that serve this conclusion:

1)      Observation (experiment and experience) shows that a certain amount of matter (in a closed system) neither increases nor decreases.

2)       There can be no source in nothingness where matter can convert to and fro.

Therefore the conservation law can be rephrased as: in all possible cases of reality these two premises hold true, and it would be enough to show one possible case of reality where these two premises are both false to refute the law.

Now, all of us are familiar with the three states of matter; simply the gas, the liquid and the solid states. Suppose that there existed a fourth state (state X) which was completely imperceptible to us and therefore not yet known (remember the quest for dark matter). We all know that conversion from one state to another is happening due to effects like temperature and pressure. Suppose that in a similar way matter is transferred (one way) to or fro the state X, but that this process is taking place at an evolutionarily slow pace so that any significant change can be observed only after a long period of time, and that for all practical purposes this change can be neglected. In that case both the above premises become false, because;

1)     

Any observation covering a period of time that is long enough would show that a certain amount of matter (in a closed system) is either increased or decreased¹.

2)      There would be a source in nothingness (State X) where matter can convert to and fro.

It is apparently safe to accept the conservation law for practical purposes (like scientific or engineering applications) but it may not be wise to take it as the basis of our theories regarding the origin of the Universe where astronomically long periods of time are concerned.