Jun 13, 2008

Where have I heard this stuff before?

A new theory is challenging the Big Bang cosmology. It is called Null Physics. (Terrence Witt)

From a Wikibin page about Null Physics;

In short, existence is composed of nonexistence. Our universe is the internal substructure of nothingness. In Null Physics this premise is called the Null Axiom.

6. Eternal equilibrium. The universe has existed forever, so any cosmic process that produces byproducts must have a complementary process that reverses this production. The universe’s predominant cosmic process is fusion, which uses hydrogen and produces light and compound atomic nuclei, such as helium and carbon. This means that mechanisms have to exist to capture this light energy and use it to disassociate compound nuclei back into hydrogen for an infinitely renewable supply. The first step of this process is intergalactic redshift, which converts light energy into microwave energy. The next step is to transfer this energy to an environment where it can be applied to break compound nuclei back down into hydrogen, to provide an eternal source of universal fuel. This process requires the existence of galaxies, specific galactic motion profiles, galactic banding, massive black holes at the centers of galaxies, and it is why jets of hydrogen have been observed leaving the core regions of galaxies.
So, let me get this straight. The universe is empty and beginingless. Where have I heard this stuff before?


Null Physics website
Forum discussion, during which Terrence Witt joins in.


Honsing said...

Thank you Venerable for sharing. Here are my comments.

Every time science makes a progress, it is tempting to conclude that "See? my religion has said this before." For example now since energy is the most "in" thing for Physics, Buddhists like to explain emptiness in terms of energy, and we also name things according to energies such as habitual "energies".

Well I think this is very dangerous. Physics revolutionalizes about every 250 years and old theories would be almost completely discarded. Therefore by pegging religious beliefs to science, we are just shortening the lifespan of the religious beliefs.

Anyhow, it is obvious that the word "empty" in the Null Physics is different from the word "empty" in Buddhism. In the Null Physics, empty means nothingness.

To me, I believe that the Big Bangs are spontaneous and frequent events, that happen in many parts of the Universe. After trillions of years, the planets from a particular Big Bang will come back together due to gravitational force and everything will be merged and destroyed. However this works like a spring. When all the mass of the universe comes back to a single point, it generates a reaction force so large that a new Big Bang will occur spitting out all the masses again. Thus a new universe would be born. Hence the world will just go Big Bang - merge - Big Bang - merge - ... This would be the true meaning of no beginning and no end. And let me emphasize again, this occurs spotaneously and frequently in infinitely many parts of the universe. Hence different samaras have different cycles of birth, aging, spoiling and death. I am looking forward to astronomers having a bigger mindset and not get stuck with the idea of 1 Big Bang, 1 beginning and 1 ending.

Haha just my speculation.

E-B-E said...

Thank you venerable Ajhan for the interesting post. I am not familiar with the null physics; however you wrote: "Our universe is the internal substructure of nothingness".

Does the Buddhist emptiness means nothingness? Does the Buddhism says that there is nothing out there?

It would be great if you could clarify this point.


Ian said...

See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:

Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html
The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
* Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
* Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
* A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
* Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
* Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.

Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.