The relation between the so-called standard model in physics
and the hypothesis of the “Big Bang” is investigated as that correspondingly of
a well-confirmed scientific theory and of an additional metaphysical conception
only consistent to the former. The conception of scientific astrology is
introduced as an example of another metaphysical concept also consistent to the
standard model but inconsistent to the “Big Bang” hypothesis.
The example serves to outline a few main features of any
metaphysical conception accompanying a scientific theory: to be consistent both
with it and some traditional and common metaphysics; to assist for adopting the
scientific theory in the society and the financing of its research; to address
a successful direction of research and thus to form a wide consensus among the
scientists and society. Any pretender to a new metaphysics should satisfy those
necessary conditions. It must win the completion with the old one after
exhausting a certain direction of research changing the direction and replacing
the old metaphysical conception.
Scientific astrology is defined as some kind of dependence
of some scientific laws or of some phenomena experimentally observable on the
space-time position of the earth in the universe. The hypotheses offered by
scientific astrology should be confirmed only by means of scientific methods
used in the corresponding scientific discipline studying the phenomena and
laws. The current space-time position of earth in the universe privileges both
a reference frame and a wave function and the standard model describes them.
Announcing the corroboration of the so-called Higgs boson in the middle of 2013, the standard model in quantum physics was ultimately confirmed. It is often interpreted in terms of the “Big Bang” put the beginning of the universe, of space-time, and of the corpus of fundamental physical laws.
The standard model does not imply the hypothesis of the Bing Bang: It is not more than consistent to that hypothesis, which can be also seen as a kind of metaphysical generalization of the standard model: The fact that is confirmed in a set of cases is ostensibly generalized to the statement that is valid in all cases using the method of induction. However, the confirmation of the standard model does not mean the confirmation of the Big Bang for it is consistent also to other hypotheses, which are inconsistent to the Big Bang hypothesis in turn.
The idea of scientific astrology is a good way to be demonstrated another metaphysical hypothesis quite different and contradicting to that of the Big Bang, but consistent to the standard model. It has the additional advantage to visualize both logical inconsistency and benefit of any metaphysical generalization in science at all and thus of any metaphysics of science.
Scientific astrology can be defined as some kind of dependence of some scientific laws or of some phenomena experimentally observable on the space-time position of the earth in the universe.
One should emphasize that the hypotheses offered by scientific astrology should be confirmed only by means of scientific methods used in the corresponding scientific discipline studying the phenomena and laws, to which the hypotheses concerning the eventual dependence of the position of the earth refer. After scientific astrology has defined as above, the following hypothesis within it can be formulated: The current position of the earth in the universe privileges both a reference frame and a wave function. It is relatively constant for the position of the earth to the universe changes too slowly in comparison to the standard time measures of human civilization: years, centuries, and millennia. Thus that relatively constant position of the earth can be both metaphysically mystified as the absolutely privileged wave function and reference frame at issue and hidden in some area inaccessible to scientific research therefore turning out to be transcendent de facto. Furthermore, the offered hypothesis within scientific astrology would demystify that ostensibly scientific metaphysics as just anti- or non-scientific. The very well confirmed theory known as the standard model shows that there exist both a privileged inertial reference frame and a privileged wave function equivalent to the former. The physical parameters of the fundamental particles according to the standard model determined those privileged reference frame or wave function. The chosen reference frame determines in turn their parameters.
The hypothesis of the Big Bang mystifies that chosen reference frame adding as ostensibly understanding by itself that the choice has been made “before” or exactly in the very beginning of the
universe.
Thus the scientific fact that an inertial reference frame is privileged predetermining a series of scientific laws and constants is unreasonably substituted by a much stronger hypothesis that the privileging had taken place before the beginning of the universe and thus is out of any scientific research within our universe. If one would like to investigate the nature of the privileging choice anyway, he or she is forced to introduce theoretically other universes external to ours.
The offered hypothesis within scientific astrology clearly demonstrates that the same privileging choice can be very well explained also within the universe by the space-time position of earth to it, here and now, and thus experimentally verifiably in principle. The usual alternative interpretation by the additional hypothesis of the Big Bang involves a series of “Bible metaphors” about the Creator and the creation of the universe, God’s particle, etc., even till the question about God’s sex.
Thus that metaphysics of science is closely connected to the traditional metaphysics of religion. Science and physics in the case needing many billions from the taxpayers utilize that common metaphysics inking it to the metaphysics of science therefore legitimating the latter and the expenses of physics in a
“democratic” and traditional way.
As to the scientists themselves, they enjoy and amuse very well understanding that the standard model should be advocated in the society in a different way for it cannot promise any utilization in the foreseeable future. Of course, they know that the standard model cannot say anything about the Big Bang hinting their ironical attitude even by the chosen term. However, there are victims of the own propaganda as usual. Furthermore, any scientific investigation it the area, which cannot prove its
consistency to that metaphysics, win grants rather more difficultly.
Thus the metaphysics of science though being non-scientific determines the leading direction of scientific research. The example of scientific astrology can furthermore show that any alternative theory should accept some traditional metaphysical “belief” or superstition to have opportunities to win the money vote of the taxpayers who are not scientists in general, of course. The necessity of media assistance is unavoidable.
However the scientists need scientific arguments to adhere to the new scientific “belief” or paradigm: The hypothesis of scientific astrology is a kind of generalization of the standard model. The theory of quantum information suggests a unification of the pseudo-Riemannian space of general
relativity and the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics. It interprets the underlying “gauge” group of the standard model [U(1) X SU(2) X SU (3)] as a “wave” image of a privileged inertial reference frame within wave-particle duality. The dark matter and dark energy, the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, Fermi’s paradox, etc. can be easily explained in the new framework. The transition between the many universes with different physical laws turns out to be smooth within our universe.
The above hypothesis of scientific astrology tries to demonstrate the main features of the metaphysics of science by the example of a new one.
No comments:
Post a Comment