The Cosmological Constant: a New Law

[coldcreation]

From Coldcreation:
I'm not interest in advertizing my book.
It is not for sale. I think science should be for free.
I mentioned the book only to show that the few ideas posted where not based on whims, but on a six year endeavor.

A memorandum on terminology: Up until now, I have not evaded the expressions currently used in theoretical deliberation among cosmologists, science historians and artists. The precise meanings of key words in these discussions are both extremely solid in their implication and obvious enough. However, I only use them when they are particularly appropriate or where definitions are generally acknowledged.

Scientific writings laden with technical terms and over-complicated style have always been vigorously challenging to infiltration by the unqualified layperson. I am not lured in this direction, because I observe the development of a self-perpetuating assemblage of scientific technocrats as the very probable outcome of the conquest of such writings. Certainly, it is difficult to decipher then prove or disprove ones contentions without a comprehensive academic education. Nonetheless, both language and writing have evolved since the first prehistoric grunt and stick drawing in the sand: to limit the vocabulary to the simple, would be to limit the discussion of the complex.

A.M coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by JerryB

coldcreation, first, Welcome to Science Forums. Although I can't speak
for others here, I wish you well.

constructive criticism:

1) Take the time to correct spelling and typing errors it will
increase your credibility.

2) Speak as simply as possible and avoid using obscure references
("Einstein's enfant terrible"?). It will increase your audience.

3) Make your posts as short as possible focussing on one point
at a time. It will be easier to respond to and discuss.

OK JerryB, you got me. Sorry. I never re-read what I write to make sure there are no typo erros (or real spelling erros). So the credibitlity factor should be indepent.

I'm half french, that's why i slipped in the 'enfant terrible.' If you prefer 'blunder' (the word used for Einstein's term in every modern book I've ever read about cosmology) that's OK. ('Fudge factor' is in about half of them).

I hope it was clear that I was writing about Lambda, the cosmological constant , and not omega, the energy-density parameter.

Good point on short messages. I'll try starting later this afternoon. (I just sent a couple complex messages (sorry).

PS. Thanks for the constructive criticizm.

AM

[coldcreation]

I'll keep this as short as possible...

These are the main points to be made with regards to the cosmological constant:

(1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a fierce initial event. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.

And I add that it is possible to construct the theory of everything based on current known physics. No new physics is required.

In short: see above (1) this was Einstein's original reason for introducing lambda. But he neglected on important feature of the constant. And so his lambda didn't actually solve the stability problem.

(2) This obviously follows from the first point, i.e., no expansion means everything including space and time were not jammed into a point at t = 0.

(3) Obviously too. Cryogenic creation? This is simple to explain with known physics. The timescale involved in this process dwarf the suspected age of the universe.

(4) 2, 3, and 4 follow from the first point.

(5) Consciousness can be explained other than with a quantum approach.
But to do so a fundamental law seems to be required. Indeed one very important one was missing from the literature.

That law is based on the idea that the cosmological constant is of fundamental, or universal importance. The law describes lambda, and consequently gravity. The conclusion is that space (the vacuum) cannot expand.

This being the most profound assumption of big bang cosmology, there remains only one option: to discard all expansion models.

I would love for someone to try and pock a hole in that conclusion. And in doing so, please explain which natural law (thermodynamic or otherwise) should be used to describe the 'physical' conditions of a region with extent temperature, density and energy near infinity.

Oh, don't forget to include too the explanation or law describing the 'physical' mechanism involved in the creation of space between galaxy clusters.

Please also explain where the epoch of galaxy formation lies, because it aint in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field plate.

I leave you with a good luck...


A.M. Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Yo, I don't want this to become a monologue, and I know all of you in the States are sleeping when I write these words from barcelona, Spain, but I would hope that the jist of the arguments presented, vocabulary aside (sorry this idea is not writen as an Idiots Guide to Cosmology for all you laymen out there who complain when someon write a word longer than 7 letters.

Seriously though, here is a statement that demands response, especially from the most devote big bangers I will now describe the big bang. Please tell me if I am wrong:

__________________________________________________ ______________

Well that's it. Oh, if something escapes you, my definition is writen on the line above.

That's my point. There is nothing but a blank, no equation, no words to explain it, at least not within the context of physical science, which, correct me if I am mistaken, covers everything in the universe, including consciousness.

Here is a quote by a man who never accepted the idea of a singularity of the big bang or black hole types, but found then interesting to study as aberations of mathematical nature.

“Let every man judge by himself, by what he himself read, not by what others tell him.” (Albert Einstein, About Freedom, 1931)

It is time to wake up!!!

[coldcreation]

Hello infamous,

This seems like a more appropriate place to elaborate of what will follow. After all the quantum relativity of consciousness is the most speculative part of the Cold Creation theory. And the title of this thread is the subject of my next mail.

More soon

[infamous]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Hello infamous,

This seems like a more appropriate place to elaborate of what will follow. After all the quantum relativity of consciousness is the most speculative part of the Cold Creation theory. And the title of this thread is the subject of my next mail.

More soon

Hello coldc..., I would like to ask a question at this juncture if I may? How does quantum relativity of consciousness bear upon the physics of creation? And even more important, could you explain in brief what the two, quantum relativity and consciousness have to do with each other. I'll grant you that consciousness must someday be explained by quantum interactions but at present that goal seems, at least to me, a long way off.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by infamous

Hello coldc..., I would like to ask a question at this juncture if I may? How does quantum relativity of consciousness bear upon the physics of creation? And even more important, could you explain in brief what the two, quantum relativity and consciousness have to do with each other. I'll grant you that consciousness must someday be explained by quantum interactions but at present that goal seems, at least to me, a long way off.

OK, but we're jumping ahead of ourselves. The idea is that the mechanism for the formation of consciousness is identical to (the same as) the one responsible for the existence of fields surrounding all heavenly bodies (no religious connotations intended).

There is a natural way to group different classes of phenomenon within the guidelines of the same physical law (that will be stated shortly). In passing, we mention that the concept of space as the foundation for all physical events, manifestations, happenings, phenomenon or transmission of information at a distance (via the field) is not metaphysical.

Some may debate or dispute whether the mechanism behind consciousness is similar to, or the same as, that of gravitating bodies, the geometrical fields and their relation to space. I should admit from the outset that a watertight case cannot be made at present for the external field of consciousness (we lack ultra-sensitive detectors). But we can at least offer circumstantial evidence that the manifestation and interaction of fields on intermediate scales (compatible with living beings) may be roughly identical to those of the macroscopic and microscopic world - founded on the concept of lambda as a fundamental constant of nature, and attached to a new law of nature.

Consciousness and the physics of creation are indeed related. Both are subjected to exactly the same physical laws. The difference is only related to complexity and process.
Consciousness is much more complex (and difficult to explain) than material creation (a simple process).

Quantum relativity and consciousness have to do with each other. There is no inconsistency between these terms and Einstein’s preceding effort to define the field as an extension of physical bodies. Certainly, the history of the entire universe is perceptibly marked by symmetry, polar opposites, where mass/energy and field are evenly balanced, equal, proportioned, stable, well-adjusted, symmetrical.

The same ubiquitous law that describes the natural mechanism inbuilt throughout space considerably governs states of consciousness or awareness: it is responsible for the field and is present in all sectors of the natural word.

I hope all this is not too superfluous. It definately require further elaboration...

[coldcreation]

a new thread will soon open.

stay tuned

[infamous]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

a new thread will soon open.

stay tuned

I've got my rabbit ears on coldc...... and I'll be listening, BTW, have you decided on a title for this new thread. If you have, send me a private message, I'd like to be there for the grand opening.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by infamous

I've got my rabbit ears on coldc...... and I'll be listening, BTW, have you decided on a title for this new thread. If you have, send me a private message, I'd like to be there for the grand opening.

hello,

What's BTW? I must have been gone from the States for too long.

I have a couple of ideas for the name of the thread:

The Big Bang (1922-1998)
Kat ton daimona eaytoy,
‘He lived like he had a divine spirit within’ in ancient Greek
Son of A. A. Friedmann: raised, tutored and brought to fame by abbé G. Lemaître.

The Big Bang is Dead from hypothermia.

Or how about: Your charred hulk will not stand still eerily locked in the frozen space north of the North Pole.

No but seriously. Cold Creation does signify the death of the mythical primeval atom hypothesis.

To call it a myth is not to belittle its significance. Mythologies were indispensable to defining who we want to be, and especially, who we are. We caught a violent glimpse of cosmologist’s myth possibilities, just prior to its end. The 1998 Hubble telescope observations of SNe Ia gave them its final flicker, like a brilliant burst that the sun discharges before it sets for good.

Note that the birthday of the big bang indicated above is based on Friedmann’s 1922-23 “discovery” of the “creation of the world from nothing,” a model universe that “transforms itself into a point.” (1922 was also the year Mussolini took over Rome). In the ceremonial imaginary sense, the big bang became a social reality in the early 1930’s with the cosmogonic speculations of theologian-physicist Lemaître, the great grandfather of cosmology, and his widely accepted primeval atom hypothesis.

yo Coldcreation