The Primordial Nature of Today's Fundamental Particles (original) (raw)
Related papers
Challenging the assumptions that conflict with causal set theory
Physics is currently fragmented into competing theoretical approaches that contradict one another in regard to foundational assumptions. Airing these contradictions can clarify the stark choices that confront theoretical physics from within. Causal set theory has found a respectable niche in fundamental physics, and it is particularly brutal in contradicting widely held assumptions. A candidate for the Theory of Everything, causal set theory has the simplest, most rigorous formalization of any theory. When stripped of any physical interpretation, it is the formal theory of " partial orders, " a domain of pure mathematics. A partial order is a structure generated by an asymmetrical relation. A partial order becomes a causal set when the ordering relation is designated " causal. " We then have the mathematics of partial orders applied to the physics of cause-and-effect. (See reference [1] for a link to the Wikipedia article on causal sets, which has a standard definition, discussion, and further references to landmark papers.) Dual-parameter space-time is a composite of spatial relations and time relations. When a 4-D manifold is formulated as a causal set, spatial relations are not employed. In lieu of space-time there is a causal web—a single-parameter manifold composed entirely of time-ordering relations and their relata. The single parameter is time. A generic temporal successor relation generates the 4-D manifold all by itself. The exclusion of primitive spatial relations means that there is no geometry in causal set theory. Deprived of geometry, causal set theory relies on the topology of temporal succession patterns to model the universe. An example of a 4-D manifold, constructed as a causal set, is depicted in the following diagram. You will notice that the " arrow of time " is the only graphic element employed. The arrows make junctions only at their endpoints—other arrow crossings indicate nothing. The diagram consists entirely of arrows that connect to one another at junctions. This specifies the time order of the junctions, defining one specific causal set.
Causality: The Nature of Everything
Arxiv preprint physics/9912008, 1999
Abstract: We pursue research leading towards the nature of causality in the universe. We establish the equation of the universe's evolution from the universe-state function and its series expansion, in which causes and effects connect together to construct a linked chain ...
This paper explores the scientific viability of the concept of causality—by questioning a central element of the distinction between " fundamental " and non-fundamental physics. It will be argued that the prevalent emphasis on fundamental physics involves formalistic and idealized partial models of physical regularities abstracting from and idealizing the causal evolution of physical systems. The accepted roles of partial models and of the special sciences in the growth of knowledge help demonstrate proper limitations of the concept of fundamental physics. We expect that a cause precedes its effect. But in some tension with this point, fundamental physical law is often held to be symmetrical and all-encompassing. Physical time, however, has not only measurable extension, as with spatial dimensions, it also has a direction—from the past through the present into the future. This preferred direction is time's arrow. In spite of this standard contrast of time with space, if all the fundamental laws of physics are symmetrical, they are indifferent to time's arrow. In consequence, excessive emphasis on the ideal of symmetrical, fundamental laws of physics generates skepticism regarding the common-sense and scientific uses of the concept of causality. The expectation has been that all physical phenomena are capable of explanation and prediction by reference to fundamental physicals laws—so that the laws and phenomena of statistical thermodynamics—and of the special sciences—must be derivative and/or secondary. The most important and oft repeated explanation of time's arrow, however, is provided by the second law of thermodynamics. This paper explores the prospects for time's arrow based on the second law. The concept of causality employed here is empirically based, though acknowledging practical scientific interests, and is linked to time's arrow and to the thesis that there can be no causal change, in any domain of inquiry, without physical interaction.
In Causality Principle as the Framework to Contextualize Time in Modern Physics
2016
Since the moment Boethius meditated on the nature of time in his fifth book on The Consolation of Philosophy, we have more tools to reflect on the subject. The onset of relativity and quantum physics provides us with the best insight, to date, that guides our reflections on the philosophical debates that attempt to theorize a definition of time. To clearly address the problems related to the theoretical models that account for the nature of time, adjustments to our interpretation of the contextual issues involved in special relativity are in order if we are going to preserve our notion of causal reality. As the construction of string theory emerges as the reigning theory for quantum gravity, a precise picture of causal reality can be accounted for through theories such as Dyson’s Chronological Protection Agency, Hořava’s theory of gravity, and new insight to how simultaneity is interpreted in relativity theory. With this model, the question about time in the philosophical debates ca...
Out of Nowhere: Spacetime from causality: causal set theory
2020
This is a chapter of the planned monograph "Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Theories of Gravity", co-authored by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich and under contract with Oxford University Press. (More information at www.beyondspacetime.net.) This chapter introduces causal set theory and identifies and articulates a 'problem of space' in this theory.
It is shown that two models of causality exist. There is dialectic model and evolution model. Two models have mutual tie. It is shown that the interactions must be analysed only within framework of dialectic model. Instantaneous interactions do not contradict dialectic model. The velocity of propagation of interactions is nonsense, and indeterminism is a false branch in philosophy and physics.