Logic, logic, are they logical?


Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler just posted an article “Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity? (http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/ )”.


He wrote, “I’m not making this up out of my head.  Just yesterday I was involved in a long conversation with professors and post-doctoral researchers at Harvard, in which we discussed various exotic mathematical methods for exploring the inflationary epoch and the era before it. The possibility that there really is a singularity at the beginning of the universe never came up once.”


Of course, if those Harvard professors have the ‘veto’ power over ‘Nature’, the above statement has settled the issue.



He wrote, “The mistake is obvious — it doesn’t make sense to assume that the period of rapid growth that you went through as a tiny embryo was the simple continuation of a process that extends on and on into the past, back until you were infinitely small.  Instead, there was a point where something changed… the growth began not from a point but from a single object of definite size: a fertilized egg.”


Wow! Logic, logic, is this logical? Are there at least three obvious processes?

One, fertilized egg to … to you (180 lbs).

Two, biochemical compounds (amino acid, protein) to sperm, egg, to fertilized egg.

Three, quarks, electrons to atoms to biochemical compounds.


There is absolutely no need for the process ‘one’ going back to quarks directly, let alone to singularity. It reaches almost infinitely small (quarks) with at least three ‘similarity transformations’, that is, in three tiers. Will quarks have one lower tier to go? Will there be a tier which reaches the singularity? These are beside the point. Strassler’s above logic is not logical.



Strassler wrote again, “Moreover, there’s a point of logic here.  How could we possibly know what happened at the very beginning of the universe? No experiment can yet probe such an early time, and none of the available equations are powerful enough or usable enough to allow us to come to clear and unique conclusions.”


This is truly the key issue. Knowledge or truth can be gained via many different ways. The experimental pathway is a good way but also the most unreliable pathway. The entire Aristotle physics was based on the best experimental data available at his time.  It was the same for Newton and Einstein. The best data of LHC today will be outdated in no time. The worshipping the data is truly problematic in physics. The rationale can easily check out this singularity issue. Are the three tiers (from quarks to … to … to your 180 lbs body) constructed as fractal (similarity transformations)? If they are and a lower tier structure is constructed, then the validity of this lower tier can be checked out with the following criteria.

  1. It is a part of this fractal, that is, with similar logical structure.
  2. Can this lower tier be a base to solve all open issues in physics? If it can, then there is no reason of not using it as the base for the above structure.


Can we find a lowest tier (no tier below it)? Is this lowest tier reaching the singularity? These are beside the point.