Jaaanosik Reply #87
Yes, I object.
I object, because I am presenting two 'tentative pillars':
1. Where the quantum fluctuations come from - already explained.
2. Where the photons come from - I did not say that but I am going to say it now. I see the same first cause giving energy to photons.
These are two building blocks that are 'tentative' the rest is physics.
Photon creating mass particle? It is physics and if we believe this testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PositronQuotePositrons may be generated by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom in a material.
... then it is already proven by experiment.
Nothing else is needed. We have our universe.
Now your turn to show any other cosmological 'theory' that is simpler. 'Theory' that has less starting building blocks that are less 'tentative'.
I am done.
I'll just comment if I find something interesting here.
Good job. For me to add anything of interest that isn’t already under consideration by the scientific community, and documented in Wiki, lol, would be speculation on my part.
It's OK to speculate. What's the big deal?
Cosmology is philosophy and logic.
Earlier in the thread there was discussion about how the first cause is often not addressed in various theories and models of the universe because we just don’t know yet. Additionally, there is the fact that the Supernatural is not considered scientific from the perspective of the scientific method, and so doesn’t qualify as a scientific first cause, and thus violates causality.I disagree that it violates the causality. The first cause is a part and it has been a part of the philosophy for centuries.
It is part of the logic.
Your two tentative pillars and the Wiki on positrons lend support to your conclusion that, “Nothing else is needed. We have our universe”, but if your model is quantum mechanics, the consensus is that the theory is incomplete and not yet considered the consensus model of the universe. If your first cause is “always existed” then quantum mechanics doesn’t go there, and you have put words into the existing body of knowledge. Those words put your revision of QM into the speculative New Theories category, IMHO.
The QM comes after the first two building blocks. It appears to me it is complete in this sense.
The other hypothetical models have issues.
QM alone has an issue of - 'Quantum fluctuations of a field' - what field? Where does it come from?
Big Bang - where the singularity comes from? What's the cause?
The universe existed all the time - how? It breaks causality.
Yes, we can call what I presented as 'the new speculative hypothetical model' - no problem. This is not theory. A theory can come from a proven hypothetical model. Cosmological hypothetical models cannot be proven therefore they stay hypothetical models. There is no theory here.
This 'new speculative hypothetical model' appears to be better than anything out there based on the Occam's razor.