A Quantum Approach To The Big Bang Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 765):

We have become used to mathematical laws — laws of extraordinary precision — controlling the physical behaviour of the world. It appears that we again require something of exceptional precision, a law that determines the very nature of the Big Bang. But the Big Bang is a spacetime singularity, and our present-day theories are not able to handle this kind of thing. Our expectations, however, are that what is required is some appropriate form of quantum gravity, where the rules of general relativity, of quantum mechanics, and perhaps also of some other unknown physical ingredients, must come together appropriately.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, mathematical laws neither control nor determine the physical behaviour it models, just as a map neither controls nor determines the territory it models. In terms of modality, mathematical laws are laws in the sense of modalisation (probability/usuality), not modulation (obligation/inclination).  In terms of construing experience, physical behaviour is first-order meaning (phenomenal), and mathematical laws are reconstruals of first-order meaning as second-order meaning (metaphenomenal).

From this perspective, according to General Relativity, a singularity is a mathematical point with no spatial dimensions: the point at which space intervals have contracted to zero due to the effects of mass. Since Quantum Theory models the instantiation of potential, its application to the Big Bang is to model the beginning of the Universe as the instantiation of potential, with space-time as the dimensions of the instantiations.

Apparent Cosmic Good Fortune Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 759):

It is remarkable that the constants of Nature are so adjusted that such an energy level should be in just the right place, so life, as we know it, could come about. Another example of apparent cosmic good fortune is the fact that the neutron’s mass is just slightly greater than that of the proton (1838 and 1836 electron masses, respectively). The existence of an appropriate family of stable nuclei, on which almost the whole of chemistry depends, rests upon this seemingly fortuitous fact.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this misconstrues result (life, stable nuclei) as purpose, since the word 'adjusted' implies intention.

An analogous proposition would be that Einstein's ancestors all slightly adjusted their behaviours to fortuitously produce Albert.

The Weak And Strong Forms Of The Anthropic Principle Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 759):

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this weak form of the Anthropic Principle simply locates a consequent (sentient life) with its necessary conditions (conditions suitable for sentient life).

From the same perspective, this strong form of the Anthropic Principle also locates a consequent (sentient life) with its necessary conditions (fundamental constants of Nature suitable for sentient life in one of many universes). This version proposes universes that cannot be scientifically investigated, drawing on the misunderstanding of potential as actual in the interpretation of quantum physics.

The Strong Anthropic Principle Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 758):

Much more problematic are versions of the strong anthropic principle, according to which we try to extend the anthropic argument to determine actual constants of nature (such as the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton, or the value of the fine structure constant). Some people might regard the strong anthropic principle as leading us to a belief in a ‘Divine Purpose’, whereby the Creator of the universe made sure that the fundamental physical constants were pre-ordained so as to have specific values that enable sentient life to be possible. 

On the other hand we may think of the strong principle as being an extension of the weak one where we broaden our questions of ‘where’ and ‘when’, so that they apply not just to a single spacetime, but to the whole ensemble of possible spacetimes. Different members of the ensemble might be expected to possess different values for the basic physical constants. The where/when question now also involves a choice of universe within the ensemble, so again we must find ourselves in a universe which permits sentience to come about.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the first interpretation of the strong anthropic principle, above, misconstrues sentient life as the purpose, rather than the result, of the fundamental physical constants, and then misconstrues this purpose as the reason for the fundamental physical constants.

The second interpretation, above, draws on the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum physics, which misconstrues potential (possible) as actual. 

The Weak Anthropic Principle

Penrose (2004: 758):

It should be evident to the reader that arguments from the anthropic principle are fraught with uncertainties, although they are not without genuine significance. We do not have much idea, for example, what conditions are actually necessary for the production of sentient life. Nevertheless, the situation is not so bad when used with examples, such as given above, where we are taking the laws of physics and the overall spacetime structure of the universe as given, and we ask merely questions like where or when in the universe are conditions likely to be so-and-so, in order to be conducive to sentient life. This version of the anthropic principle is referred to, by Carter, as the weak anthropic principle.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this principle is so weak as to be neither anthropic nor a principle. It is merely an anthropocentric view of the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

The Anthropic Principle Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 757):

Roughly speaking, the anthropic argument takes as its starting point the fact that the universe we perceive about us must be of such a nature as will produce and accommodate beings who can perceive it. We could use this argument to explain why the planet upon which we live has such a congenial range of temperatures, atmosphere, abundance of water, etc. etc. If conditions were not so congenial on this particular planet, then we would not be here, but somewhere else!

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this fact misconstrues a past event as a future certainty. The fact is simply:

the universe we perceive about us is of such a nature as did produce and accommodate beings who can perceive it.

Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory distinguishes two general types of cause: reason/result and purpose. The fact, then, proposes that humans are the result of how the universe is. The anthropic argument, thus, tries to explain the reason (the conditions) by the result (humans), instead of explaining the result (humans) by the reason (the conditions). That is, it mistakes the result for the reason.

By a further step, the anthropic principle mistakes result for purpose, so that it explains the reason (the conditions) by the purpose (humans). In this view, humans are misconstrued as the purpose of the universe.

The Special Status Of Gravitational Fields Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 731):

Gravity seems to have a very special status, different from that of any other field.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, a physical field is a region of spacetime under the influence of some agency. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a gravitational field is different from other types of field in as much as it is the dimensions of spacetime itself that are affected, since the agency (mass) causes the relative contraction of space intervals, and the relative expansion of time intervals, with increasing proximity to its centre.

Closed vs Open Universes Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 721):

The usual K > 0 case is called a closed universe, which means spatially closed (i.e. contains a compact spacelike hypersurface). Frequently cosmologists refer to K < 0 as the ‘open’ case, whereas technically the K = 0 case is also spatially open.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a spatially closed or open universe is one in which geodesic trajectories through space are 'closed' or 'open'.

Spatial Curvatures In The Evolution Of The Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 719-20):

In Fig. 27.13a,b,c, I have tried to depict the time-evolution of the universe, according to Friedmann’s original analysis of the Einstein equation, for the different alternative choices of spatial curvature [K]. In each case, the universe starts from a singularity — the so-called Big Bang — where spacetime curvatures become infinite and then it expands rapidly outwards. 

The ultimate behaviour depends critically on the value of K. If K > 0 (Fig. 27.13a), the expansion eventually reverses, and the universe returns to a singularity, often referred to as the Big Crunch, which is a precise time-reverse of the initial Big Bang in the exact Friedmann model. If K = 0 (Fig. 27.13b), then the expansion just manages to hang on and a collapse phase does not take place. If K < 0 (Fig. 27.13c), then there is no prospect of collapse, as the expansion ultimately approaches a constant rate. 

(There is an analogy, here, with the stone thrown upwards from the ground. If the stone’s initial speed is less than escape velocity, then it eventually falls back to the ground, like Friedmann’s universe for K > 0; if equal to escape velocity, then it just fails to fall back, like K = 0; if greater than escape velocity, then it continues and approaches a limiting rate which does not slow down, like K < 0.)

 

Blogger Comments:

For reasons previously given, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'spatial curvature' is not the curvature of space, but the curvature of geodesic trajectories (processes) in space. (This is borne out by the explanatory analogy, which is concerned with the trajectories of stones in space.)

Cosmic Censorship Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 714):

It is generally believed that the spacetime singularities of gravitational collapse will necessarily always lie within an event horizon, so that whatever happen to be the extraordinary physical effects at such a singularity, these will be hidden from view of any external observer. This is not a mathematically established property of general relativity, however. The assumption that the singularities will always be so hidden is referred to as cosmic censorship…

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, not only are events near the singularity unobservable because the means of observation, light, is contained within the event horizon, but because of the expansion of time intervals there, such processes would take virtually forever to unfold, relative to the unfolding of processes outside the black hole, such as the process of observation.

Quantum Gravity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Penrose (2004: 713):

In fact, it seems unavoidable that the realm of quantum gravity (or whatever is the appropriate term) will be entered, so that these expectations of the classical theory will have to be modified in accordance with this. We do not yet know what the correct ‘quantum-gravitational’ theory must be, but these black-hole considerations supply us with an important input; and this input should be guiding us in the appropriate directions in our search for the correct ‘quantum gravity’.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the search for a 'quantum gravitational' theory is a wild goose chase. Where Quantum Theory is concerned with the instantiation of potential, General Relativity is concerned with the interrelation of (instantiated) mass and spacetime.

The motivation for a 'quantum gravitational' theory is the desire to unify the four forces, but according to General Relativity, gravity is not a force between particles, but a geometrical effect of mass on spacetime.

The Unavoidability Of A Spacetime Singularity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 713):

At least, what we do know is that, so long as Einstein’s picture of a classical spacetime can be maintained, acting in accordance with Einstein’s equation (with non-negative energy densities and some other mild and ‘reasonable’ assumptions), then a spacetime singularity will be encountered within the hole. The expectation is that Einstein’s equation will tell us that this singularity cannot be avoided by any of the matter in the hole and that the ‘tidal forces’ (i.e. Weyl curvature) will diverge to infinity — very possibly in a wildly quasi-oscillatory fashion, in the general case.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, General Relativity construes gravity as the contraction of space intervals in the direction of a centre of mass. If the singularity at the centre of a black hole is the contraction of space intervals to zero, then the spatial dimensions of matter that "encounters" it will be zero. This self-contradiction suggests that either the spatial intervals do not contract all the way to zero, a mathematical point, or that matter-energy falls short of the singularity.

Falling Into Black Holes — Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 713):

For a black hole of a few solar masses, the tidal forces would be easily enough to kill a person long before the horizon is even reached, let alone crossed, but for the large black holes of 10⁶M⊙, or more, that are believed to inhabit galactic centres, there would be no particular problem from tidal effects as the horizon is crossed (the horizon being some millions of kilometres across). In fact, for our own galaxy, the curvature at the horizon of its central black hole is only about twenty times the spacetime curvature here at the surface of the Earth — which we don’t even notice! Yet, the relentless dragging of the observer inwards to the singularity at the centre would subsequently cause tidal effects to mount very rapidly to infinity, totally destroying the observer in less than a minute! Destruction by rapidly mounting tidal forces is, indeed, what awaits any physical material as it plunges inwards towards the centre of a black hole. Recall our concern about the fate of the material of our 10M⊙ collapsing star. Even the individual particles of which it is composed will, in short order, encounter tidal forces so strong that they will be torn apart — to what, no-one knows!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the curvature of spacetime at the event horizon of a black hole is actually the curvature of the shortest trajectory through spacetime, the geodesic, at the event horizon of a black hole.

The dragging of an observer (material) inwards towards the singularity at the centre of a black hole is due to the shortest trajectory being in that direction, since space intervals are relatively contracted in that direction. But since time intervals are relatively expanded in that direction, the time it takes for material to fall to the centre of a black hole approaches infinity, relative to the time intervals outside the black hole. That is, even if events inside a black hole could be observed from outside the black hole, they would appear to take forever.

Since space intervals contract with proximity to the singularity, material falling into a black hole has less and less space to occupy. But since the spacetime of black holes is due to the effects of mass, and matter can be neither created nor destroyed, a reasonable assumption is that individual particles will eventually be converted to energy at some point before the space intervals contract (theoretically) to zero at the singularity.

Crossing The Event Horizon Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 711, 712-3):

The event horizon is not made of any material substance. It is merely a particular (hyper)surface in spacetime, separating those places from which signals can escape to external infinity from those places from which all signals would inevitably be trapped by the black hole. A hapless observer who falls through the event horizon, from the outside to the inside, would not notice anything locally peculiar just as the horizon is crossed. Moreover, the black hole itself is not a ponderable body; we think of it merely as a gravitating region of spacetime from within which no signal can escape. …

As noted above, an observer in a space ship would notice nothing particular happening as the horizon is crossed from the outside to the inside. Yet, as soon as that perilous journey has been undertaken, there is no return … there is no escape, and the observer would encounter rapidly increasing tidal effects (spacetime curvature) that diverge to infinity at the spacetime singularity at the centre (r = 0).

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the curvature of spacetime is actually the curvature of the geodesic, the shortest trajectory through space, due to the relative contraction of space intervals in the direction of the centre of a massive body. So the event horizon of a black hole is the outermost distance from the centre of a black hole at which the geodesic is so curved that the trajectory of light remains within that distance from the black hole centre. Because of this, no events within this horizon can be observed from outside the horizon, so as an observer crosses the event horizon, they cease to be observable to those outside the event horizon.

In this view of General Relativity, the singularity at the centre of a black hole is the point at which space intervals theoretically contract to zero and time intervals theoretically expand to infinity, though the space contraction may be physically limited to the Planck length, and the time expansion to its correlate.

According to General Relativity, a black hole must include a concentration of mass, since it is mass that contracts the space, and since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it must also include all the energy that flows into it.

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 690):

Whereas the first law is an equality, the second law is an inequality. It tells us that a different quantity, known as the entropy has a larger (or, at least, not smaller) value after some process takes place than it had before. Entropy is, very roughly speaking, a measure of the ‘randomness’ in the system. Our body moving through the air starts with its energy in an organised form (its kinetic energy of motion) but when it slows down from air resistance, this energy gets distributed in the random motions of air particles and individual particles in the body. The ‘randomness has increased’; more specifically, the entropy has increased.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, energy can be understood as the ability of a process to unfold, and entropy can be understood as the decrease in that ability. In this view, the second law of thermodynamics says that the unfolding of a process has the effect of decreasing the ability of that process to unfold, therefore making the unfolding less probable in the future.

The First Law Of Thermodynamics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 690):

The First Law is simply the statement that the total energy is conserved in any isolated system. … The first law makes it explicit that the total energy is not lost when, say, a body loses its kinetic energy as it slows down because of air resistance. For this energy is simply taken up in heating the air and the body. This heat energy is understood as (primarily) kinetic energy in the motions of air molecules and vibrations of particles composing the body. Moreover, temperature is simply a measure of energy per degree of freedom, so the thermodynamic notions of heat and temperature are basically the same as previously understood dynamical notions, but applied at the level of the individual constituents of materials and treated in a statistical way. The First Law has the kind of precision that we are familiar with: the value of something, namely the total energy, remains constant despite the fact that all kinds of complicated processes may be taking place. The total energy after the process is equal to the total energy before the process.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, potential energy is the capacity of a process to unfold, and kinetic energy, for example, is the instantiation of that potential. In this view, the First Law of thermodynamics states that the total capacity for processes to unfold is conserved in any isolated system.