Figure 1.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” -Max Planck
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” -Arthur Schopenhauer
abstract:
Research into a new kind of unified physics that emerges from the works of Leibniz is gaining interest in the technological age. This paper discusses the foundations of physics, the process of developing a hypothesis inspired by Liebniz's Monadology, and the possibility of using cosmology to confirm predictable consequences of this new approach to modeling physical phenomena.
In the Principia Newton (1687) provided the original definitions for time and space giving them both absolute and relative natures:
... it will be convenient to distinguish [time and space] into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration:
relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth."
Einstein accepted these same definitions, with the exception that his mathematics describe relative time and space (Einstein 1920).
He writes in Relativity Chapter 9:
"Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears."
In Chapter 8, Einstein gives his working definition for time:
"Under these conditions we understand by the 'time' of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event"
Einstein is defining time in terms of the moving hands of a clock, which is how Newton defined relative time:
"Relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."
Einstein accepted the absolute nature of time and space, but did not include them as terms in his equations, a point he had made to Heisenberg (1972):
"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the determination of time."
"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."
Figure 1. is an illustration of space and time suggested by the definitions of both Newton and Einstein:
Figure 1.
The philosophical foundations depicted in Figure 1., while perhaps uncommon in modern times and unacceptable in the context of scientific materialism, are actually similar to most of the great world views in all of the history of civilization, including that of the ancient Greeks. One thing lacking from Figure 1., however, is matter with both absolute and relative natures, and its relationship to the mind, as in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
This image recalls Leibniz's Monadology (1714) which has recently been gaining considerable interest. Nakagomi (1992) has written a paper called Quantum monadology: a world model to interpret quantum mechanics and relativity. Smolin and Barbour (1992) say on page 10:
"We will now describe a set of models which have these two features. In doing so, we will borrow some language from Leibniz’s Monadology, as we have found it to be the most appropriate language to use in this context."Cahill's (2003) Process Physics is another attempt. And biologists and neuroscientists are getting on this action too. Smythies (2003) has proposed that the hidden dimensions of string theory and brane mechanics suggest different realms separated by consciousness, and most recently Lanza's (2007) declaration that "Physical reality [relative nature] begins and ends with the animal observer."
Even with all the new explorers of the Leibnizian terrain, a working scientific hypothesis has yet to be found. Indeed, I believe we will find one within ten years, given the appropriate man power and resources. The personnel would have to include experts in nuclear and particle physics, neuroscientists, and computer scientists.
Despite the decade long estimated time of arrival for a complete hypothesis, the steps to develop such a hypothesis, a partial attempt, and some preliminary predictions will be examined.
To summarize the steps to develop a Monadic hypothesis:
Each of these three steps corresponds to the three elements of Figure 2., 1) absolute nature, 2) mind, and 3) relative nature.
This computer world doesn't have to be, nor should it be, perfectly compatible with the laws of physics as we know them. That will have to wait until step 3.
The example that follows is one possible hypothesis out of infinitely many possibilities and is offered on the understanding that any design decisions used by the example hypothesis are specific to this one potential hypothesis and not the underlying concepts.
* Setup Initial Conditions
public oAbsoluteMatter
oAbsoluteMatter = createobject("collection")
oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 10, 20, 10, 2, 0, 0))
oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 20, 10, 10, 0, 2, 0))
*Alternative Initial Conditions for a little more complexity
*public oAbsoluteMatter
*oAbsoluteMatter = createobject("collection")
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 10, 20, 10, 20, 0, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 20, 10, 10, 0, 2, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 10, 20, 10, -10, 4, 1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 20, 10, 10, 1, -2, -1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 5, 30, 40, -20, 35, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 605, 30, 25, -10, 2, -1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 100, 2, 10, 20, 50, 70))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 21, 10, 10, 4, 2, -10))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 12, 20, 10, -1, -40, 1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 2, 10, 10, 1, -2, -1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 5, 6, 40, -20, 65, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 0, 4, 25, 10, -2, -1))
do while .t.
clear
for each oA in oAbsoluteMatter
oA.DoStuff()
endfor
wait window
enddo
* end of program
*class definitions
define class absoluteMatter as Custom
nType = 0
nX = 0
nY = 0
nZ = 0
nDx = 0
nDy = 0
nDz = 0
procedure Init(tnType, tnX, tnY, tnZ, tnDx, tnDy, tnDz)
this.nType = tnType
this.nX = tnX
this.nY = tnY
this.nZ = tnZ
this.nDx = tnDx
this.nDy = tnDy
this.nDz = tnDz
endproc
procedure DoStuff
* draw us visuall on the screen
?str(this.nType) + str(this.nX) + str(this.nY)
_screen.FillStyle = 0
_screen.FillColor = iif(this.nType = 1, rgb(255, 0, 0), rgb(0, 0, 255))
_screen.Circle(2, 100 + this.nX, 100 + this.nY)
* move inertially
this.nX = this.nX + this.nDx
this.nY = this.nY + this.nDy
this.nZ = this.nZ + this.nDz
* see if there's anything to interact with
for each oB in oAbsoluteMatter
lnDx = oB.nDx
lnDy = oB.nDy
lnDz = oB.nDz
oB.nDx = this.nDx
oB.nDy = this.nDy
oB.nDz = this.nDz
this.nDx = lnDx
this.nDy = lnDy
this.nDz = lnDz
endfor
endproc
enddefine
This computer code will compile and run in Microsoft Visual FoxPro 8.0. These are the first three states of the program:
The program creates two objects of absolute matter, or monads. The monads have a position and trajectory in three dimensions, and their interaction is simply to exchange trajectories. As I said, these design choices are not specific to the underlying conjecture but instead shows one way to begin developing a hypothesis.
Figure 3.
When the program runs, two monads move across the screen together. The monads and their properties do not represent relative matter, space, or time.
Relative matter, space, or time arise from the mathematics in the remaining steps.
Understanding the information processing task in step 2 is the key feature of this new class of hypotheses. The information processing task is to build a virtual resource and create a new, second set of information beyond the information stored in the physical resource.
The first set of information is the computer world as we designed it, a dynamic set of data stored in a physical resource such as the computer's memory or disks, changing according to the rules of a program. The first set of information corresponds to the square of absolute nature in Figure 2.
Here's an example of the first set of information from the example in step 1. (This uses the larger set of initial conditions)
Figure 4.
These are four different states of the physical resources during the iterations of the program. Notice how a group of monads seems to be moving together?
A more refined computer world may exhibit complexity that somewhat resembles nuclei and atoms, and then even molecules and cells. In fact, a rather advanced computer world could display complexity that resembles a neural network thereby creating a new virtual resource for information to reside.
The second set of information created by the complexity of the computer program resides in that virtual resource. It is not the computer world as we designed it; it is the computer world as it appears from within itself. The second set of information corresponds to the circle of reality to the right of Figure 2.
The trick of this part is not to add any special code or entities to the computer world to make an observer. Instead, the observer and the mechanisms it uses to observe should result from the same initial conditions and rules as the other objects it is observing.
Put another way, what is required here is that the complexity that results from the initial conditions and rules contains something that is aware of its environment. That observer will most likely exhibit complexity that we recognize as intelligence operating on a neural network.
The example hypothesis doesn't contain that kind of complexity, so step 2 has yet to be completed.
In step 3, just as in information science, we determine the criteria for success. A successful hypothesis is one where the second set of information matches the observations and experimental results of our own world.
I said in step 1 that the computer world, the first set of information, doesn't have to match our world exactly. But in step 3 the second set of information does have to match. The second set of information, relative nature, will exhibit Lorentz Invariance and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
For example, if we set up the computer world to perform the double-slit experiment, then the observations of the intelligence within the computer world should be comparable to the results we observe in our actual performance of the experiment. We can not know for certain what will happen until we get to step 3, but I predict the second set of information will accurately describe what we see in the actual experiment: an interference pattern and an inability to detect which slit the particle traveled through without destroying the interference. We will find that through the second set of information, the first set of information can view itself, but not without limitations.
The computer world should also be setup with initial conditions to perform the Michelson and Morley Experiment, and every other experiment out there. Not only should a good hypothesis predict all existing experiments, but true to the scientific method this new class of hypotheses should inspire new experiments to test them.
Because the task of Step 2 has never yet been accomplished, a complete hypothesis that can be checked against all the observable evidence in the body of science is not possible. I have not yet found complexity that resembles an internal observer of the program, and therefore the ideas presented in this paper remain in the stage of the scientific method between conjecture and fully working mathematical hypothesis.
However, the broader implications of this world view can be considered and corroborating evidence can be sought. Particularly, what are the consequences for cosmology?
The primary assertion of this paper is that observable reality is just part of the Universe. This seems fundamentally at odds with the assertion of big bang cosmology that the Universe is the size of observable space.
The reasoning behind the big bang hinges on the expansion of space, based on the observed evidence that light coming from distant objects in the cosmos displays a redshift proportional with distance.
One fact worth mentioning is that light traveling through expanding space will encounter more distance to travel to reach its destination than light traveling through steady space. The expansion of space implicitly assumes an increase in duration of light's jounrey across the expanding cosmos. And, assuming f = 1 / t for the frequency of a wave, the expansion of time is what we observe directly as Hubble redshift.
It would seem that the observed expansion of time is the direct evidence, and that the expansion of space is one scenario where that occurs. Is the expansion of space and the big bang a good fit for a Monadic cosmology?
That would be very unlikely. Expansion doesn't address both the absolute and relative natures in a Monadic theory.
A Monadic interpretation of Hubble redshift is that absolute space stays "fixed" while our relative measurements and calculations of distance appear to be expanding. Our minds lead us to that conclusion because of one key assumption in physics:
The photon travels at c in a vacuum for all infinity with an indefinite range.We accept that in a finitely sized Universe, light travels infinitely far. If the Universe is finite, and light is infinite, does that imply that part of the Universe is more Universal than the Universe as a whole?
As a resolution to that paradox, consider that instead light has a finite range with definite limits, and the Universe itself is infinte. Light doesn't come to a dead stop, however, as it dies out is loses velocity, which we observe as Hubble redshift, a loss in energy and frequency proportional with distance. The light signals from galaxies in deep space are delayed due to the loss in velocity which is observed in the light curves of supernova and the falloff in surface brightness.
To go about proving those statements mathematically, the following code suggests that photons don't have inertia, and that it actually costs them energy to move through space. Their energy is stored in what could be considered an "energy tank" with a finite quantity and is used in specific increments. As their tank approaches specified levels, the amount of energy they deliver incrementally is reduced, as is their ability to move through space, which is observed as Hubble redshift.
define class absolutePhoton as Custom x = 0 c = 10 totalEnergy = 10^5 function move this.x = this.x + this.c * As the photon moves it loses energy this.totalEnergy = this.totalEnergy - this.c if mod(this.totalEnergy, 10^4) = 0 and this.c > 0 this.c = this.c - 1 endif return enddefine
This simple and novel description of a photon makes significant departures from classical physics, and may be the key to advancing our understanding of many quantum and cosmological observations.
But what about predicting any new phenomena?
A Monadic cosmology suggests that observable space is not the whole Universe. For example, Figure 5. is an illustration of the Universe, the circle in the middle contains all observable space and matter.
Figure 5.
We're at the center of that circle, and the light from our galaxy won't reach beyond that circle. Likewise, light from outside that circle won't reach our galaxy, because the distances are greater than the range of the photon.
On the other hand, light coming to our galaxy from within the circle a little ways inside the observability limit will have already decelerated from its initial c, and demonstrate Hubble redshift.
The light reaching us at the very end of its range will be delivering energy levels just above 0, and this of course is observed as the CMB.
An implied consequence of the CMB as starlight at the very end of its range is that some clusters may exist that sit on both sides of the observability limit. This leads to the prediction that in the future more powerful telescopes may unveil clusters with one side within the circle, recognizable as starlight, and another side beyond the circle, with the light on the circumference limping in as the CMB.
Beyond the CMB is probably of very little consequence to our existence, which may be why the Universe doesn't show us.
Finally, a very unexpected prediction. Because c = frequency * wavelength, and because c will be decelerating and frequency will be decreasing during Hubble redshifting, we should assume the wavelength either stays steady or decreases too, contrary to expansion that says it increases.
Testing that prediction may require reconsidering how we design and calibrate astronomy equipment.