[Physics] Logical origin of the universe

[Zoltan Losonc]

Carl & All,

According to my understanding, the purpose of a mailing list like this (as a platform of communication between dissident scientists) is to propose ideas with the expectation, that they would receive either open-minded approval, or criticism, or get further developed. Therefore, hopefully you will not mind to read some critical evaluations of your writings. I have promised to demonstrate what kind of logical filters and commonsense supposed to be applied to scientific theories and models, using your theory as the subject. So here it is. But of course, such critique and logical filter should be applied by humans, and not by computer programs. The moment AI will become more intelligent than humans, we will be doomed (I am also a programmer)…

There is this claim on your webpage: “This presentation was first placed on the Internet in 1998.”
I was looking for this first publication on the internet archives, in an attempt to see how your theory has evolved over time. Apparently, the earliest version of your theory was published in 2002:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020903021351/http://www.mb-soft.com/public/fouruniv.html
Am I missing something? If it was on another page, then which was that, and where is it on archive.org?

It would take too much time to write a decent critique about your complete theory, which I don’t have at the moment. Therefore only one or two illogical points will be highlighted to serve as an example.
First of all I don’t consider the theorizing about the emergence of our universe to be a real science. It supposed to belong to the “esoteric” category, but since it has been discussed here and I am not subscribing to the esoteric mailing list I will discuss it here. The official science can not even explain all the phenomena that are observable today properly, then how on earth do they gather the arrogance to guess what could have happened billons of year ago, under circumstances they have no idea about. It is pure guess work and empty speculation in the name of “scientific” priesthood. The right approach instead is to spend all that time and money on the correct understanding of the nature how it works today, and use that knowledge for the benefit of the whole mankind (not only for the elite). When we get to the point that we know how nature works today in its minute aspects then we can start proposing educated guesses about the origin of the universe that might have happened billions of years ago. But the official science today is still in its infancy to tackle such an aim successfully. 
The basic premise of your theory rests on your dissatisfaction and disapproval that the official BB theory requires the violation of the conservation laws. You don’t like the idea that the laws of nature could change over time; and you don’t agree that they could be different under different conditions. You claim that your theory does not suffer from such inconsistencies, because the universe could have emerged from nothing into existence without violating any of the conservation laws we can observe today. Let’s see how well you did in this effort.

Carl’s theory claims:
“At some moment, a single photon came into existence, which propagated in some specific random direction from some specific location, along with a single anti-photon which propagated in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE direction.”
Came into existence… Why? What is the cause? The most basic logical error (and lack of common sense) in your theory is the same as in most atheistic creation theories. It is well summarized in the quote used by Arend:
“Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.”
And they say that atheism is objective, scientific, and it abhors blind belief… If this supposed to be science, then I want to distance myself from it as far as possible! There is no greater act of religious fanaticism than to throw the law of causality into the garbage, and believe that something can happen for no reason at all, or believe that a consequence requires no cause. Atheism is as much of a religion as any other; just it sneakily hides its religious nature by denying that it relies on beliefs that can not be proven and substantiated. 
Human intelligence and logic collapses and becomes useless the moment we start accepting ideas that violate causality. This is logical error #1 that defies common sense.
I would not be against atheism if it would be consistent, make good sense, be perfectly logical, would require no beliefs of its own, be perfectly provable etc. But it is not! For an atheist, the best theory of existence that would actually make sense is to claim that the universe has no beginning and no end. It has always existed and will always exist due to the conservation laws, or whatever reason. This way they can avoid violating causality, and avoid falling into the trap of claiming that something has emerged from nothing for no reason at all. If the universe is eternal then there is no need to explain how it came into existence. 
There can be countless other, much more reasonable explanations for the red shift and the apparent expansion of the universe. The expansion does not have to last forever, there might be a law or force that we don’t know about, that will turn this process around and make the expansion and contraction to become a continuous endless oscillation. The process of contraction does not need necessarily to extend into microscopic dimensions near singularity; it can stop much earlier due to yet unknown cosmic laws and forces. 
On the other hand if we theorize that the universe is not eternal, and it was created from nothing at the beginning, then we have to explain the cause of such emergence. This is where the need for a non-material creator arises (because matter did not exist earlier), that or who would be the cause of such creation. This is also the point where the question arises, whether the consciousness is just a specific functioning (or product) of physical matter and energy, or rather the other way around. Could it be that consciousness was first, and it is the basis and creator of matter, which could explain the cause for the emergence of energy and matter from “nothing”? It could also explain that matter does not emerge from nothing and it does not exist in empty vacuum (nothing), but rather that it has emerged from, and exists within (the fabric or “substance” of) consciousness. The ancient scriptures like the Indian Vedas (Veda = Science, handed down by higher intelligent beings to humanity thousands of years ago) explain the creation of this universe in this manner, and it makes most sense of all theories I have studied for more than 30 years. 
The main difference between this explanation and the previous still reasonable atheistic theory is that in this case Vedas claim that Consciousness is eternal, and it has no beginning and no end. It also makes more sense to believe that simple things are created by a complicated intelligence, rather than assume that complicated, highly organized intelligence can be created by simple disjointed laws and particles by “chance” in a universe where the main tendency is towards entropy and chaos, and not the other way around. 
On the same website where the above definition of atheism was found, there is another alternative definition of religion, which is wrong, because it describes the Christian world view in the name of all religions, but it actually ignores other religions. I mention this here only to state that I don’t subscribe to such religious world view either. 
If people would not be born into religions (atheism is also a form of camouflaged religion), and would not be indoctrinated and brainwashed from birth, then would it make any sense at all to have “religious” thoughts and philosophical enquiries in this direction? Sure! Just consider that the average human life lasts for less than a century, and there was an eternity before birth, and there will follow an eternity after death. If you care even a bit about your best interests, then would it not be important for you to find out the truth, whether you as a conscious being will exist after death or not? Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that your conciseness is not material and you survive the death of the body, then would it not make sense to research how to serve your best interests in a time span that is immeasurably longer than the few decades of human life? If this human life has any impact on your future beyond death, would it make sense to waste it on useless pursuits due to blind belief in materialism? I am not here to preach any specific religion. In fact I am trying to separate logic and common sense from blind unreasonable belief, be it theistic or atheistic. Open minded enquiry, sound logic, and common sense are our guides and tools; if we abandon them for whatever reason we are heading towards ignorance (or false knowledge), which causes suffering. The word “religion” has been unjustly attached to ideas, philosophies, and ancient knowledge that have nothing to do with a white bearded selfish god seeking anything from us. 
I hope you scientist will excuse me for this little philosophic detour from the observable laws of nature, but it is not possible to get to the bottom and roots of this subject without discussing the mentioned arguments. Now let me get back to the claims of Carl’s theory and point out one more logical error.
Carl’s theory claims:
“At some moment, a single photon came into existence, which propagated in some specific random direction from some specific location, along with a single anti-photon which propagated in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE direction.

This is a STANDARD process known in nuclear physics, which is perfectly compatible with Conservation of Energy, since these two new objects would completely annihilate each other if and when they ever encountered each other, again then resulting in EXACTLY ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.”

Tow packages of energy emerge from nothing and this supposed to be compatible with the conservation of energy? Where is the logic in this claim? Two photons would annihilate each other only if they would meet at a point where they would be in perfect counter phase with each other. But it is complete nonsense to speak about the phase of waves or photons if a specific point and time is not defined where and when that phase is measured. A wave has got no phase in general sense without a reference point and time. It is perfectly possible to turn one photon around and merge it with its alleged pair in phase, and instead of annihilating energy and getting back to the original “zero total energy” create more energy by positive interference. 

For those who doubt that this is possible at leas in the case of conventional macroscopic EM waves, I would suggest to study the book of Janos Vajda, in which he has mathematically proven that the officially accepted Maxwell Equations implicitly allow the violation the law of energy conservation. You can download the book for free from:

https://feprinciples.wordpress.com/free-energy-from-wave-fields/

Instead of photons, I would prefer to discuss only the pure wave nature of light, or rather to discuss only macroscopic electromagnetic waves in this case; because the concept of light as having a dual particle and wave nature is a mute and artificial construct of physics. This concept of the photon is not thoroughly understood yet, and therefore it makes more sense to limit our discussion to things that we know and understand better. If we base our theories on wrong assumptions, like in case of the special relativity, then we will arrive to wrong conclusion. 

If we assume that the energy emerges from nothing as the time-inversed process of the destructive wave interference, then your concept is incorrect. Destructive wave interference can occur only when the electromagnetic waves propagate in the same direction, have exactly the same polarization, frequency, amplitude, and meet in exact counter-phase at a specific point, or at all points. If two waves of identical frequency propagate in opposite direction and meet (or collide) at a point in counter-phase, then they will not annihilate each other, but rather they will create a standing wave pattern. Energy will not get destroyed in this manner. Therefore the time inversed version of this process will require the emergence of two EM waves from a standing wave pattern, propagating away from each other in opposite direction. This is not “emergence of something from nothing”. The preexistence of the standing wave pattern is required.

On the other hand, if we want to use the time inverted version of the real destructive interference, then it would look like two identical EM waves in counter-phase would emerge from nothing for no reason at all, and their direction of propagation would start to separate. It does not matter that at a certain point and time they are 180 degrees out of phase! They still carry energy and if we convert their energy into other forms, they will never annihilate each other to result in an alleged starting zero total energy. I don’t see how is the creation of two rays of EM energy from nothing is not in violation of the conservation law! It does violate the law of energy conservation, just like the BB theory, thus it is no better than that, in this regard.

Even if we assume that the two created waves never get converted into other forms of energy, it is still nonsense to claim that they would annihilate each other if they would ever change their direction of propagating and they would merge again. To achieve an exact out of phase merger with identical polarization we would have to forbid them to rotate in space and also make sure that they travel identical distances before they merge again. If they can rotate and travel different distances, then they will be out of perfect counter-phase and identical polarization, and they will not mutually annihilate each other even if the merge perfectly. The final result again is that energy has emerged from nothing for no reason at all, and there is an infinitesimally small chance that they will ever annihilate each other. 

Thus your premise, that you can explain the emergence of something from nothing without the violation of the conservation laws does not hold. On the other hand if we start out with a postulate that something just emerged from nothing for no reason at all, and then you start from there; then for the further explanation of the universe’s evolution there is really no need for destructive or constructive wave interference, nor for the conversion of EM wave energy into particles and matter. We could as well just claim with the same ease that energy, particles and mater has emerged from nothing for no reason at all, and start from there. Not that it would make sense, but it would not be worse than your theory in this regard.

Zoltan Losonc