HomeNewIntroductionQuantum Mind BlogQuantum Mind TheoriesRelated TopicsKey ArticlesReferencesContact UsOnline Book

Cosmology 3

Includes books/papers by Marcus Chown, Henry Stapp and Roger Penrose.

1.) The Never Ending Days of Being Dead: Dispatches from the Front Line of Science - Marcus Chown - Important in terms of the possible structure of the quantum vacuum/spacetime

2.) The God Theory - Bernard Haisch - Also important for the structure of the quantum vacuum/spacetime

3.) Inflation theory - Anil Ananthaswamy, based on Gary Gibbons, Neil Turrock, Abhay Ashtekar & David Sloan - Another take on inflation theory

4.) Cycles of Time - Roger Penrose - New theory for the origins of the universe.

5.) The basis problems in many-worlds theories - Henry Stapp - Stapp claims that there is a flaw in the many-worlds theory.

6.) Concentric low variance circles in the cosmic background radiation - V. Gurzadyan & Roger Penrose - Presents a challenge to the consensus inflationary theory of the early universe,

1.)

The Never Ending Days of Being Dead: Dispatches from the Front Line of Science

Marcus Chown

INTRODUCTION: The ideas discussed in this book look crucial to our understanding of spacetime, energy, matter, the physical law and the relationship of consciousness to all of these. Spacetime and the energy it contains are viewed as fundamental, while quantum particles are suggested to be less fundamental being distortions of the underlying spacetime. This could be seen as related to the Penrose suggestion of objective reduction as a result of the separation of the spacetimes of superposed particles, which is also a distortion of spacetime. Also discussed are the ideas of Gregory Chaitin, which appears close to Penrose in arguing that mathematicians can go beyond what any computer can perform, because they can go beyond the constraint of the Gödel incompleteness theorem. Chaitin also proposes that logical mathematics is the exception and can be seen as islands of logic in a vast sea of random truths with no logical basis.

Gravity and Mass: Possibly the most important part of this book is concerned with gravity and mass. This involves the question of inertia, the built in resistance of objects to being moved if they are stationary, or having their motion changed if they are already moving. This kind of inertial mass is the most familiar form of mass. The associated concept of weight represents the force of gravity acting on the mass, and for this reason weight varies according to the local strength of the gravitational field. This is referred to as gravitational mass, as opposed to the constant of inertial mass.

Mass is also conceived of as a concentrated knot of energy. Einstein identified that there was energy associated with mass. This is related to the fundamental particles out of which matter is built. Ordinary matter and energy, as distinct from dark matter and energy is built from quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus, and from leptons of which electrons are a subset. These particles are bound together by the four fundamental forces of nature. The strong and weak nuclear force govern the nucleus of the atom, the electromagnetic binds together mid-sized objects such as organic matter and machines, while the gravitational force governs the movements of stars and planets. All these forces are conveyed by carrier particles, with photons carrying the electromagnetic force and gluons carrying the strong nuclear force that binds together the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus and the quarks of which these are composed.

It is generally thought that these four forces are manifestations of a deeper symmetry (meaning acting in the same way in all directions) that prevailed at the beginning of the universe, but has since been broken. The single symmetry that prevailed at the beginning of the universe carries with it the assumption that at that time particles had no mass, although many of them have since acquired mass. This account of the universe indicates that there must be a mechanism by which mass is bestowed on previously massless particles.

One possible mechanism is the proposed Higgs field. The Higgs field is suggested to provide the 'rest mass' that is intrinsic to the particle rather than any mass associated with the energy of its movement. The particle may also possess mass by virtue of it being in motion. Fields such as the electromagnetic field and the Higgs field are viewed as being fundamental, with quantum particles being less fundamental, because they are just local excitations of a field. P. However, there is much that the Higgs concept does not explain. It does not explain why different particles have different mass, although it is assumed that they have different coupling constants with the Higgs field. In any case, the Higgs field, if shown to exist, accounts for only a small part of the energy of ordinary matter. The majority is tied up in the field of the strong nuclear force intermediated by the gluons which themselves have no rest mass.

The Quantum Vacuum: It is still not clear whether the Higgs field can explain inertial and gravitational mass. Some researchers, such as Bernard Haisch of the Calphysics Institute think that these forms of mass come from interaction between a quantum particle and the quantum vacuum, as the particle moves through the vacuum. The fundamental particles are seen as localised knots in the quantum fields.

Haisch has considered the possibility that the quantum vacuum has some connection to inertial mass. In this idea quantum behaviour is traced back to the oscillation of photons jumping in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum. Haisch's idea is developed through a discussion of Hawking radiation. Hawking proposed that the strong gravity near a black hole distorts the quantum vacuum so that virtual photons that normally pop in and out of existence here receive enough energy to become permanent particles. It is suggested that these permanent photons would to an external observer look like the radiation from a hot furnace. Working from the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, researchers Paul Davies and Bill Unruh think that if an observer near a black hole saw heat radiation coming from the black hole, it also means that an observer accelerating through the quantum vacuum would see heat radiation coming from in front of them. From the point of view of an accelerated observer, the quantum vacuum is a real thing capable of having an effect.

Another researcher, Alfonso Rueda proposes that the oscillation of the virtual particles of the vacuum interact with objects so as to produce inertial mass. Photons are seen as being exchanged between the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum and the quarks and electrons that are most fundamental in matter. This accords with the idea that inertial force comes from outside the body, from the quantum vacuum and from the interaction between the particles of matter and the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. It turns out in this approach that the fundamental thing is not mass, but the quantum vacuum. The Higgs field is relegated to producing rest mass, while inertial mass comes from the vacuum. Photons can be exchanged between the quantum vacuum and the quarks and electrons that make up matter. Although an electron is regarded as a point particle, it behaves as if it had a certain size, and this is viewed as an oscillation that reflects the oscillation of the quantum vacuum around it. It is speculated that the different masses of particles reflect differences in the resonating frequency with the quantum vacuum.

It is further suggested that inertial and gravitational mass share a common origin, which is that they both arise from the interaction of electron charges with the quantum vacuum. Haisch and Rueda believe that the electric charge in matter distorts the quantum vacuum in their vicinity, attracting or repelling virtual particles with the same or opposite charges. This distortion interacts with the charges in other matter creating a force of attraction between the two pieces of matter. One bit of mass only pulls on another via the quantum vacuum. The bending of light that is seen as a proof of the warping of space in general relativity is here explained in terms of a distortion of the quantum vacuum. Acceleration through the quantum vacuum results in resistance from the vacuum and this is seen as explaining inertia. Similarly, with gravitational mass, this is having the quantum vacuum accelerate past you as you fall towards a massive object.

According to the theory of general relativity spacetime is warped by energy, with mass being categorised as a form of energy. In the quantum theory approach to this concept virtual photons that jump in and out of existence in the vacuum warp spacetime around themselves. The source of the energy that warps space in general relativity is the energy density of space or the amount of energy in a unit volume of space. Similarly it is thought that inflation which consensus thinking believes to have driven the expansion of the very early universe, may have been a function of the quantum vacuum.

In quantum theory, the quantum wave has a height or amplitude that can be calculated at any point in space by means of the Schrodinger equation. The square of the amplitude represents the probability that a particle will be located at a particular point in space. The quantum wave spreads out over time according to the Schrodinger equation so that the longer that the wave is isolated from the environment the greater the uncertainty as to the position of the particle. Where quantum waves overlap and interfere with one another they are referred to as coherent. This quantum coherences gets lost or decoheres when a particle interacts with the environment. In the human eye coherent quantum particles of light (photons) decohere as a result of interaction with a large number of molecules in the eye. Because quantum coherence is lost when particles interact with a large number of other particles, quantum coherence is usually seen as a property of isolated particles. Relatively large collections of quantum particles have been demonstrated to remain coherent if they are isolated from the environment. Thus Zeilinger and team at the University of Vienna has succeeded in making a 'buckyball', a molecule of 60 carbon atoms remain coherent.

The Omega number: The mathematician, Gregory Chaitin, developed the idea of the Omega number. This number is seen as a demonstration that most mathematics cannot be discovered solely by logic and reasoning. The fact that mathematicians can discover new mathematics may mean that they are employing some form of intuition that no computer can replicate. Although the author does not mention Penrose, possibly because he does not want to involve a popular book in an acrimonious and often ill-informed controversy, Chown nevertheless seems to side with Penrose and against the very vocal 'group-think' consensus, in arguing that brains can do things that computers cannot.

Chaitin equates the length of a programme with the complexity of a number. The existence of a pattern in a number is the key factor in how complex a number is. If there is a pattern there is a short cut to writing down a programme for the number. The programme in this case is shorter than the number itself. Such a number contains reducible information. Where information is irreducible, the programme is as long as the number. Omega is defined by Chaitin as an infinitely long number without any pattern.

Set Theory: Set theory is concerned with a group of objects known as 'sets'. Examples of sets are the set of all countries with names beginning with the letter 'A' or the set of all odd numbers or the set of all mammals. Some sets are contained within larger sets, as the set of all mammals is contained within the set of animals. Set theory sounds innocent enough, but research into set theory during the nineteenth century drew attention to the existence of a catastrophic set, the set of all sets that are not a member of themselves. In this case the set is a member of itself only if it is not a member of itself. The example of this is the case of the village barber who shaves every man who doesn't shave himself. He shaves himself if and only if he doesn't shave himself.

This contradiction in set theory was a nightmare for nineteenth century mathematicians. Mathematics was founded on logical reasoning, and was regarded as a superior realm of clear-cut truths. But in the case of set theory logical reasoning led to absurdity. The German mathematician, David Hilbert, aimed to eradicate this problem. Maths is based on axioms, self-evident truths on which mathematicians agree. Theorems are a logical consequence of such axioms. Hilbert hoped to identify a small group of axioms as the basis of all mathematics. Following from this he hoped to set out all detailed logical rules for getting from the axioms to all the theorems. This would make it possible to prove any mathematical statement. The important thing was to show that the theorem could be derived from the bedrock axioms. There would be a procedure of algorithm for checking each step in a proof. The list of theorems could be infinite and all contradiction could be removed. What Hilbert had accidentally conceived was what we now understand as computing, a totally mathematical procedure.

Gödel: However in 1931, Gödel showed that the Hilbert programme could never be achieved. Whatever axioms were selected as the basis for mathematics there would always be legitimate theorems that could not be derived from the axioms. It was discovered that the world of mathematics was full of undecidable theorems that are true, but can never be proved by logical reasoning. Gödel proved his result by embedding in mathematics the self-referential statement that "this statement is unprovable". Mathematics was thus shown to be incomplete. The subsequent idea of getting round Gödel by simply adding more axioms does not work because Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no matter how many axioms are added, there will always be some theorems that cannot be derived from them.

Non-computabilty: A bit later than Gödel, Turing produced the idea of uncomputability or non-computability. Non-computability is viewed as being connected to Chaitin's Omega concept, where complexity is a function of the length of programme needed to generate a number. The similarity is that just as the Omega number cannot be compressed into a programme, an undecidable Godel theorem cannot be compressed into axioms. Undecidabality is therefore seen as a consequence of non-computability which involves such questions as whether it is possible to know whether a programme looking for a particular number, for instance an even number that is not the sum of two prime numbers (Goldbach conjecture) will ever halt. If it was possible to have axioms of the kind that showed that a programme like this would or would not halt, it would be possible to solve the halting problem, but Turing showed that this was impossible. In this way, he showed that there were theorems that could not be proved by step-by-step logical rules.

In Chaitin's view, undecidability and non-computability are normal in mathematics, rather than an esoteric state at the margin, which is how they had been treated during the twentieth century. Most of mathematics is seen as being composed of random truths that are true for no reason. Randomness is a statement that events are unpredictable and happen for no reason. Chaitin envisages mathematics as islands of provable truth, such as algebra and calculus, connected by threads of logic in a sea of random truths. Chaitin views the Goldbach conjecture as just such a random truth, not connected by logic to anything else, with no way for it to be deduced from a set of axioms. This means that the Goldbach conjecture should be accepted as an axiom in its own right. Chaitin takes the view that any given set of axioms only captures a tiny part of the complexity of the universe.

Chaitin's views raise a question as to how mathematicians actually do mathematics and find new theorems. Mathematicians move between the islands of mathematical provability. Reason and logic is insufficient. Chaitin thinks that they use insights that go beyond reason and logic. Mathematics of this kind appears to involve imagination and creativity, and as such is not limited by Godel's incompleteness theorem, with the brain performing functions that no computer can perform. This is precisely what Penrose had argued in 1989 in respect of the brain and mathematical understanding, although the connection is not mentioned here.

2.)

The God Theory

Bernard Haisch

Beginning from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Haisch explains that electric and magnetic fields flowing through space constantly oscillate, as a function of the uncertainty of their position and momentum. The name 'zero-point field' refers to the fact that this is the lowest possible energy state that persists even when the heat/movement of molecules has ceased. Because electromagnetic radiation permeates the whole of space this adds up to an enormous amount of energy. Haisch stresses that there is no such thing in the universe as a void, and that this lowest energy state is still full of this zero point energy. This quantum vacuum is viewed as a sea of energy fluctuations and force perturbations jumping in and out of existence. Haisch treats the zero point energy as a real thing, and concentrates attention on what effect this has. The existence of the zero point energy has long been demonstrated by the Casimir force. At distances smaller than a millimetre metal can be forced together, because long wave length radiation is suppressed between the plates, so more pressure is exerted on the metal sheets from outside than inside. The nearer the plates are brought together, the more radiation is excluded and the greater the external pressure.

Haisch developed ideas about the effects of the zero-point field in conjunction with a colleague, Alfonso Rueda. The assumption since Newton has been that the mass of an object, which is in effect a measure of its inertia, was an innate property of the object itself. Rueda made an opposite proposal that the inertial resistance to acceleration came not from the object itself but from contrary force exerted by the surrounding zero-point field. Further to this, it is suggested that the zero-point field could explain the Pauli exclusion principle, with the buffeting of the underlying electromagnetic field preventing the electron from losing energy and spiraling into the nucleus of the atom.

The astrophysicist, Sir William McCrea has additionally suggested that these vacuum fluctuations are needed not just to overcome the inertia of macroscopic objects, but to generate any action in the universe at all, including radioactive decay and electron transitions, thus making it the key element in the passage of time/the increasing entropy of the universe. If these roles are attributed to the zero-point field, it can be viewed as an underlying reality that sustains the matter that appears in spacetime. Haisch suggests that there should be other zero-point fields besides the electromagnetic zero-point field relating to the other forces of nature such as the strong and weak nuclear forces. Thus it is acknowledged that the zero-point electromagnetic field might be only part of the story.

What is the significance of all this for consciousness studies? 'Fundamentalist' theories try to explain consciousness in terms of fundamental quantum features, which ultimately involves the nature of the quantum vacuum/spacetime. An understanding of this therefore becomes central to an understanding of the physical basis of consciousness. If the quantum vacuum is as central to the material structure of the universe, as these proposals suggest, it becomes the more plausible that it could underlie consciousness.

3.)

Inflation theory

Anil Ananthaswamy

New Scientist, 16 October 2010

Gary Gibbons (Cambridge) and Neil Turrock (Perimeter Institute) here attack the dominant form of the inflation theory of the early universe. The theory holds that the earliest universe was permeated by a field called the inflaton. However, Gibbons and Turrock have calculated that this inflaton field requires initial conditions that have an impossibly small chance of arising. They express the view that 'a deeper theory' is required.

A possible explanation is found in 'loop quantum gravity' (LQG) the nearest rival to the more dominant string theory as a way of reconciling the conflicts between relativity and quantum theory. Loop quantum gravity has in some models been taken as suggesting that our universe arose from the collapse or 'big gravitational crunch' of a previous universe into some form of black hole, from which a 'big bounce' allowed our universe to arise. Calculations by LQG theorists Abhay Ashtekar and David Sloan of Pennsylvania State University, suggest a high probability of inflation arising in this type of universe, based on the repulsive force of the 'big bounce' itself.

This theory might rescue inflation as an explanation for the thermal equilibrium of the cosmic background radiation, but it is of only limited help in dealing with the more esoteric fine tuning problem, of how the laws of physics are so finely tuned to allow the appearance of organic life. This form of inflation theory allows multiple universes to be spun off, one of which has the right laws of physics for organic life. However, the theory now has to explain the laws of this earlier universe tuned to a 'big bounce', and how this universe arose in its turn. In fact like most theories of the origin of the universe, there is a tendency to infinite regress, pointing to the fact that to deal with the origin we need something that breaks the grip of algorithm-driven cause and effect.

4.)

Cycles of Time

Roger Penrose

The Bodley Head (2010)

In his most recently published book, Cycles of Time, Roger Penrose is once again the maverick, this time with a new theory for the origin of the universe. His argument is that the far future of our expanding universe will be a period in which only particles with no rest mass such as photons or the hypothetical gravitons that intermediate the gravitational force will still exist. These will be the final outcome of starlight or cosmic background radiation or of radiation and gravitational waves from black holes that have finally evaporated.

These particles with no rest mass all travel at the speed of light, or in terms of special relativity along the null line of the light cone. According to Penrose, it would be possible for them to cross a boundary from the far future type of universe into a new universe producing a Big Bang situation. He suggests that our present universe could have arisen in this way.

This proposal has the advantage of giving initial conditions for our universe that would explain the high degree of thermal equilibrium in the cosmic background radiation, with needing to invoke a period of very rapid spatial inflation in the early universe. Apart from explaining the thermal equilibrium of the background radiation, inflationary theory has also invoked the possibility of spinning of a huge number of separate universes, one of which would have the finely-tuned laws of nature necessary to produce organic life. Penrose has not been alone in pointing out that inflation requires even more precise initial conditions than are required to produce the existing laws of nature from a single Big Bang. There is a way round this, but this also involves an earlier universe falling into a final crunch and then bouncing out as a Big Bang. This scheme has its own imponderables as to the origin of the physical law.

The Penrose scheme is rather simpler since it would appear that our present physical law already existed in the preceding universe. Furthermore, on the basis of discoveries made in the last 20 years it now appears unlikely that our universes will end in a big crunch, and quite likely that it will end with radiation moving further and further apart. Having our present universe arise from a big crunch would therefore introduce a strange element of asymmetry.

That said the Penrose scheme appears not to get us much closer to solving the problems that lie at our origin. He proposes a whole series of cyclical universes running from Big Bang to a dispersed far future and then starting over again. However, it is not clear where or how the cyclical process starts. Does it have no beginning, in which case we are essentially back, to Fred Hoyle's idea of a steady state, and open to Leibnitz's question as to why there is something rather than nothing. The alternative is that some possibly large number of cycles ago there was a first cycle with a first Big Bang, in which case we still have the problem of where the laws of physics came from. Even given this difficulty, the Penrose scheme might be thought less problematic than the current inflationary consensus.

5.)

The basis problem in many-worlds theories

Henry Stapp

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley

INTRODUCTION: Stapp criticises the many-worlds theory for not being able to specify how the evolution of the Schrödinger equation can by itself, and without some other process, create the discrete features of the world of classical physics. The significance of this is that Everett's many-worlds proposal allowed determinism into quantum theory, and in a deterministic world there is no place for freewill, and possibly no function for consciousness.

Stapp suggests that there is a problem as to how Everett's many-worlds theory works. Everett claimed that the memory records of an observer in a many-worlds scenario would be the same as those witnessing a standard form of wave-function collapse. In the simplest example of the Everett universe there could be two worlds, one where a particular electron had 'spin up', and another where this electron had 'spin down'. The reality of such a universe is deterministic because there is no need for a random decision between 'spin up' and 'spin down', since both forms are allowed to continue into the future.

The physicist, David Deutsch, looked at the many-worlds idea in the 1980s. He studied the problem of specifying an instant at which a measurement is completed. This has to be defined in terms of the Schrödinger equation. Stapp suggests that Deutsch rather fudged this area. He assumed a model world with a finite number of states, without explaining how it carried over into the real world with its infinite possible number of states.

Stapp argues that left to itself the evolution of the Schrödinger equation would leave the universe in a smeared-out state, and features such as the planet Earth would lack a well defined location. The classical world that we experience requires the singling out of particular subspaces that are not provided for in the Schrödinger equation. The continuous action of the equation on a smeared-out universe does not account for the well defined states that are experienced.

The original Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory does pick out the particular subspaces of the classical world from a continuum of logically possibly alternatives. However, the participant-observer in the Copenhagen interpretation, who chooses a particular experiment, and observes a particular outcome, is able to do this because they are not part of the Schrödinger evolution, and are not part of the quantum universe, but instead act upon it and observe it from outside. Any theory, such as the Everett many world theory that suggests that there is nothing except the Schrödinger evolution needs to explain how the continuous evolution can pick out the discrete realities that are observed.

The more modern approach to wave function collapse in terms of decoherence in the environment rather than measurement by observers also assumes the conversion of a wave that could extend over a large distance into something more limited with highly localised classical properties. It is not clear to Stapp how this can be achieved without looking to something outside the Schrödinger process. The Copenhagen interpretation had at least that advantage that it pre-specified a classical system that would collapse the wave function.

6.)

Concentric low variance circles in the cosmic background radiation

V. Gurzadyan & Roger Penrose, Yerevan University & Mathematical Institute, Oxford

arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706 and 1012.1486

INTRODUCTION: The authors claim that observations of the cosmic background radiation reveal evidence of a previous universe or aeon, and represent a serious problem for the present consensus inflationary theory. This in turn represents an attack on the argument that inflationary theory, via the multiverse, can explain the suitability of the physical laws for organic life.

The authors propose that black hole encounters within galactic clusters in a pre-Big Bang universe or aeon are visible in the cosmic microwave background that is left over from the Big Bang at the beginning of our universe. This proposal refers to supermassive black hole encounters in galactic clusters in the previous aeon. These events are suggested to have generated huge gravitational radiation bursts, which would come through as bursts of energy in the initial material of this universe. These bursts would be more energetic than normal local variations in the Big Bang aftermath. It is suggested that from our present vantage point these disturbances would be visible as circular regions with a low level of temperature variance that cannot be conventionally explained. The authors claim to have observed such rings of low temperature variance in their analysis of data on the background radiation. The distribution of these circles as families of concentric circles is claimed to be consistent with the proposition that they originate from galactic clusters in a pre-Big Bang aeon, and at the same time have a very low level of probability of emerging in any random structure.

It is further claimed on the basis of geometrical analysis the events that caused the larger of the circles observed would have to have occurred well before the end of the inflationary phase of any model of the early universe that depends on the inflationary concept, and could possibly have emerged during the late stages of a previous aeon. This is suggested to be a serious problem for the present consensus inflationary model of the early universe. Circles of the kind described would be possible in an inflationary model, but would have a different statistical distribution if that was their origin. The emergence of any such circles is apparently in conflict with the standard interpretation of inflationary theory. The recurrent nature of the circles observed is claimed to be particularly hard to interpret in terms of inflationary theory.