It occurred to me to put Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) to the test that is defined by the Task Force on Teacher Institutes of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) located in Berkeley, California. This initiative was funded by a grant that Stan Weinberg, the Founding Father of NCSE, had received from the Carnegie and Lounsbury Foundation. I decided to see if QWC qualifies as Emerging Science (referred to as Protoscience) as opposed to False Science (referred to as Pseudoscience) when analyzed by the CONPTT approach.
.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html#anchor176433
WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?
False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).
Or is Quantum Wave Cosmology actually protoscience?
WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?
Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.
For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".
NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.
Can we use the CONPTT approach to determine if QWC is Pseudoscience or Protoscience?
HOW CAN WE TELL SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE?
Concept: Following the discussion of "CONPTT", the student will be able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific statements.
Introduction: To summarize our previous discussions and today's ideas, let's list some criteria that might help us recognize the difference between what is science and what is not science, criteria that will enable us to recognize a scientific statement and a non-scientific statement.
The following criteria were developed by science educators in Iowa and found acceptable by several Midwestern high school biology teachers. (edit note: that seems appropriated for SciForums with many students and without rigorously applied distinctions between forums and forum rules)
SCIENCE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA or THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE
Six Criteria of Science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The sequence is not important, but the acronym "CONPTT" makes a good long term memory hook.
1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.
REALITY CHECK #1: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Green plants will grow towards a light source.
2. Walking under a ladder will cause bad luck.
Using the idea of "Consistency", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
2. Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.
REALITY CHECK #2: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Some plants eat meat.
2. Extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth.
Using the idea of "Observability", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one?
3. Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.
REALITY CHECK #3: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Green plants convert sunlight into energy.
2. With a rod, Moses parted the sea so his people could cross to the other side..
Using the idea of "Natural", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
4. Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.
REALITY CHECK #4: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Without sunlight (or comparable artificial light), green plants will die.
2. If you are a "Scorpio", your horoscope for today is "You'll be saying 'I feel rich !' Lunar position highlights back pay, refunds, correction of accounting error."
Using the idea of "Predictability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
5. Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.
REALITY CHECK #5: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. The Bermuda Triangle causes ships and planes to sink and disappear.
2. Life comes from life and cannot come from non-life.
Using the idea of "Testability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
6. Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.
REALITY CHECK #6: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. The number of human chromosomes was once "known" to be 48, but is now considered to be 46.
2. Living things were once grouped into 2 major groups, then 3, then 4, and now 5, because the criteria used for classifying living things have changed.
3. We know that the world began about 6000 years ago, and nothing will change that.
4. At one time, it was thought the heart pumped blood out of a large container as an "open system", but now it is known that blood "circulates" in a closed system.
Using the idea of "Tentativeness", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one?
To evaluate QWC and compare it to Emerging Science I followed the CONPTT approach.
First the C in CONPTT, Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.
QWC is based on a wide variety of observations that are consistently repeatable, naturally occurring and well documented. Expansion of our observable universe as observed repeatedly by observation of the separation of galaxies moving away form us in all directions. The equivalence of mass and energy, e = mc^2, which is observed and confirmed as to its consistency. The permanence of energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed which is a basic in our understanding of nature. Increasing entropy of useful energy in a closed system which is also a basic consistent aspect of nature; open systems can defeat entropy by renewing the supply of useful energy. The arena process that renews useful energy by converting mass and gravity back into useful energy is predicted to be ongoing in QWC because arenas, if they exist, would part of an open system.
The consistency test disqualifies observations that continually have differing or unpredictable results. Predicted mechanisms to explain observations and that are predicted to be consistent when tested are not disqualified. They can change the classification of the predicted mechanisms from science to protoscience until the predicted mechanisms can be tested and confirmed to be consistently repeatable. QWC is not classified as proved science but is not disqualified as protoscience even though it makes predictions of consistency that cannot be tested.
For example, QWC includes aspects that are predicted to be consistent but that are not observed and not directly testable based on existing technology. The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observations beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. There is no evidence that quantum action can be locked in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena.
All of these unobservable aspects of QWC are however consistent with existing observations in nature and consistent with each other. There are no two such aspects of QWC that are not dependent on each other or that are not compatible with each other. All of the aspects mentioned must be true and must work together in order for QWC to be the real cosmology so QWC passes the consistency test as consistently compatible predictions of natural mechanisms.
Next, the O in CONPTT, Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.
All cosmologies include unobservable aspects if they attempt to fully describe the universe. Each of the aspects of QWC mentioned in the consistency section above that are unobservable fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the event’s occurrence.
The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. We observe that gravity acts between mass and that there must be a medium across which the effect of gravity can be transmitted but we can’t observe the medium. The natural evidence of that medium is the nature of the relationship between mass and gravity which is continually observed in nature.
The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. We observe that mass exists and has many observable properties like kinetic energy for example, but we cannot observe directly the force that causes mass to exist from the combination of elementary particles of which we observe mass to be composed. We know there is a way that nature makes mass exist and QWC predicts that it is quantum action.
The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. These aspects of QWC are consistent with the way it predicts mass is formed. We cannot observe these waves or the trough/crest spherical wave structure predicted by QWC that would cause mass to exist but we observe mass and know there must be a cause.
The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observation beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. However these aspects of QWC fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The evidence of observed expansion rolls back to an event 13.7 billion years from which expansion emerged. QWC, as any cosmology must, addresses initial events and predicts solutions that would cause the natural observation. QWC predicts that energy cannot be created and therefore the energy in our expanding arena and the energy that initiated the expansion pre-existed. The prediction of the burst of a big crunch is based on this combination of natural observation and basic law of energy conservation. The means of the burst, called “critical capacity of a big crunch”, is consistent with the nature of mass and the energy density thresholds within which mass can function. Are there other possible explanations, yes, but in QWC the burst of a big crunch would be consistent with the observed expansion and the conservation of energy.
There is no evidence that quantum action can be locked in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. Like the other aspects of QWC mentioned above, this aspect also falls in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The implied big crunch and burst that QWC predicts account for the observed expansion must itself have a cause that is consistent with the other aspects of the cosmology. QWC predicts thresholds of energy density within which matter can form and function, and when the upper threshold of energy density is reached, mass ceases to function. The result is consistent with the observations that expansion exists and is consistent with the QWC aspects that explain the cause of that expansion.
There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena. This group of aspects of QWC is quite similar to the process of nucleosynthesis that is predicted by Big Bang Theory. Nucleosynthesis is a phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and but that relies on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. Observations are being made that support nucleosynthesis and future data produces by the LHC will expand the data. Both BBT and QWC will be modified by LHC data as it unfolds.
For these reasons, QWC passes the observation test based on the allowed range of application of the concept of observation.
Next, the N in CONPTT, Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.
QWC was developed as a cosmology because the standard cosmology did not address the cause of the observed expansion and implies that there was no space or time before the expansion began. QWC sees those conditions would require something from nothing, a violation of the conservation of energy, or the intervention of the supernatural. QWC predicts that the conservation of energy is a natural law that cannot be violated. The intervention of the supernatural is not consistent with science and would cause BBT to fail the “natural” N of the CONPTT definition of science.
QWC passes the Natural test.
Next, the P in CONPTT, Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.
Predictability and testing are well established in the scientific method. As mentioned above, many predictions of QWC are not testable. However, each aspect of QWC does pass the Natural test within the acceptable meaning of “natural” in the CONPTT definition of science and so the natural causes and mechanisms included in QWC can be used to make specific predictions.
There are categories of science that don’t completely pass the CONPTT approach. There is Non-Science which covers religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics, False Science described as Pseudoscience, and Emerging Science described as Pre-science.
QWC pass the predictability test which is intended to disqualify areas that do not now and will not normally be testable, not because of the limitations of technology, but because they are belief systems. Though QWC is not yet testable, its predictions do not fall into the category of belief systems. There is no reason to believe that future technological developments will not be able to detect quantum action, quantum waves, the energy background that transmits them, and the predicted thresholds of energy density which control them, i.e. the primary aspects of QWC that are not currently testable.
Next, the first T in CONPTT, Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.
QWC does not pass the Testability test of the CONPTT approach. This does not mean that QWC does not qualify as science. The Testability test is defined to disqualify reference to supernatural events or causes, and other causes and mechanism for which there is no existing means of testing. The failure of QWC in this category demotes it into Pre-science because though not current technology can be used to test it, it is likely that future technology will be developed that can test it. If the LHC fails to confirm the Higgs mechanism, then the direction of science technology might be refocused on finding a unifying force, i.e. quantum action.
Next, the second T in CONPTT, Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.
Any aspect of QWC that is tested successfully must be considered tentative and there is no reason for them not to be tentative within this use of the word. Non-tentative results are described as irrefutable, for example, “We know that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, and nothing will change that.”
Based on the CONPTT approach, I find that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, referred to as Protoscience as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience when analyzed by the CONPTT approach.
.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html#anchor176433
WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?
False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).
Or is Quantum Wave Cosmology actually protoscience?
WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?
Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.
For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".
NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.
Can we use the CONPTT approach to determine if QWC is Pseudoscience or Protoscience?
HOW CAN WE TELL SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE?
Concept: Following the discussion of "CONPTT", the student will be able to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific statements.
Introduction: To summarize our previous discussions and today's ideas, let's list some criteria that might help us recognize the difference between what is science and what is not science, criteria that will enable us to recognize a scientific statement and a non-scientific statement.
The following criteria were developed by science educators in Iowa and found acceptable by several Midwestern high school biology teachers. (edit note: that seems appropriated for SciForums with many students and without rigorously applied distinctions between forums and forum rules)
SCIENCE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA or THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE
Six Criteria of Science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The sequence is not important, but the acronym "CONPTT" makes a good long term memory hook.
1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.
REALITY CHECK #1: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Green plants will grow towards a light source.
2. Walking under a ladder will cause bad luck.
Using the idea of "Consistency", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
2. Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.
REALITY CHECK #2: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Some plants eat meat.
2. Extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth.
Using the idea of "Observability", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one?
3. Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.
REALITY CHECK #3: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Green plants convert sunlight into energy.
2. With a rod, Moses parted the sea so his people could cross to the other side..
Using the idea of "Natural", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
4. Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.
REALITY CHECK #4: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. Without sunlight (or comparable artificial light), green plants will die.
2. If you are a "Scorpio", your horoscope for today is "You'll be saying 'I feel rich !' Lunar position highlights back pay, refunds, correction of accounting error."
Using the idea of "Predictability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
5. Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.
REALITY CHECK #5: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. The Bermuda Triangle causes ships and planes to sink and disappear.
2. Life comes from life and cannot come from non-life.
Using the idea of "Testability", how can we determine which statement above is a scientific one?
6. Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.
REALITY CHECK #6: which of the following is a scientific statement, and which one is not a scientific statement?
1. The number of human chromosomes was once "known" to be 48, but is now considered to be 46.
2. Living things were once grouped into 2 major groups, then 3, then 4, and now 5, because the criteria used for classifying living things have changed.
3. We know that the world began about 6000 years ago, and nothing will change that.
4. At one time, it was thought the heart pumped blood out of a large container as an "open system", but now it is known that blood "circulates" in a closed system.
Using the idea of "Tentativeness", how can we assess which statement above is a scientific one?
To evaluate QWC and compare it to Emerging Science I followed the CONPTT approach.
First the C in CONPTT, Consistency: The results of repeated observations and/or experiments concerning a naturally occurring event (phenomenon) are reasonably the same when performed and repeated by competent investigators. The event is also free from self-contradiction: it is consistent in its applications. The weight of the evidence is also compatible with well established observations and limits.
QWC is based on a wide variety of observations that are consistently repeatable, naturally occurring and well documented. Expansion of our observable universe as observed repeatedly by observation of the separation of galaxies moving away form us in all directions. The equivalence of mass and energy, e = mc^2, which is observed and confirmed as to its consistency. The permanence of energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed which is a basic in our understanding of nature. Increasing entropy of useful energy in a closed system which is also a basic consistent aspect of nature; open systems can defeat entropy by renewing the supply of useful energy. The arena process that renews useful energy by converting mass and gravity back into useful energy is predicted to be ongoing in QWC because arenas, if they exist, would part of an open system.
The consistency test disqualifies observations that continually have differing or unpredictable results. Predicted mechanisms to explain observations and that are predicted to be consistent when tested are not disqualified. They can change the classification of the predicted mechanisms from science to protoscience until the predicted mechanisms can be tested and confirmed to be consistently repeatable. QWC is not classified as proved science but is not disqualified as protoscience even though it makes predictions of consistency that cannot be tested.
For example, QWC includes aspects that are predicted to be consistent but that are not observed and not directly testable based on existing technology. The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observations beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. There is no evidence that quantum action can be locked in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena.
All of these unobservable aspects of QWC are however consistent with existing observations in nature and consistent with each other. There are no two such aspects of QWC that are not dependent on each other or that are not compatible with each other. All of the aspects mentioned must be true and must work together in order for QWC to be the real cosmology so QWC passes the consistency test as consistently compatible predictions of natural mechanisms.
Next, the O in CONPTT, Observability: The event under study, or evidence of the occurrence of the event, can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as electron microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. If the phenomenon cannot be reproduced through controlled conditions, natural evidence of the event's occurrence must be available for investigation.
All cosmologies include unobservable aspects if they attempt to fully describe the universe. Each of the aspects of QWC mentioned in the consistency section above that are unobservable fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the event’s occurrence.
The existence of an energy background to the universe is one example. We observe that gravity acts between mass and that there must be a medium across which the effect of gravity can be transmitted but we can’t observe the medium. The natural evidence of that medium is the nature of the relationship between mass and gravity which is continually observed in nature.
The existence of the force called quantum action cannot be proved yet because of our limited ability to observe the elemental particles of the Standard Particle Model closely enough to prove that they are composed of energy quanta as predicted by QWC. We observe that mass exists and has many observable properties like kinetic energy for example, but we cannot observe directly the force that causes mass to exist from the combination of elementary particles of which we observe mass to be composed. We know there is a way that nature makes mass exist and QWC predicts that it is quantum action.
The existence of energy density fluctuations of the background energy caused by quantum action, and existence of the spherical quantum waves generated by quantum action cannot be observed. These aspects of QWC are consistent with the way it predicts mass is formed. We cannot observe these waves or the trough/crest spherical wave structure predicted by QWC that would cause mass to exist but we observe mass and know there must be a cause.
The existence of the Arena Landscape of the greater universe cannot be observed because according to QWC we are within a single expanding arena and our technology doesn’t allow observation beyond the most distant known galaxies. There is no direct evidence of the formation of big crunches from the galactic remnants of a history of arenas like ours that QWC predicts form in the greater universe as those remnants merge from various directions. There is no evidence that a big crunch is limited by “critical capacity” and bursts into an expanding arena of high energy density as a result. However these aspects of QWC fall in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The evidence of observed expansion rolls back to an event 13.7 billion years from which expansion emerged. QWC, as any cosmology must, addresses initial events and predicts solutions that would cause the natural observation. QWC predicts that energy cannot be created and therefore the energy in our expanding arena and the energy that initiated the expansion pre-existed. The prediction of the burst of a big crunch is based on this combination of natural observation and basic law of energy conservation. The means of the burst, called “critical capacity of a big crunch”, is consistent with the nature of mass and the energy density thresholds within which mass can function. Are there other possible explanations, yes, but in QWC the burst of a big crunch would be consistent with the observed expansion and the conservation of energy.
There is no evidence that quantum action can be locked in the core of a big crunch or that locked quantum action causes mass to stop functioning and stops gravity being emitted from that mass. Like the other aspects of QWC mentioned above, this aspect also falls in the category of phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and therefore rely on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. The implied big crunch and burst that QWC predicts account for the observed expansion must itself have a cause that is consistent with the other aspects of the cosmology. QWC predicts thresholds of energy density within which matter can form and function, and when the upper threshold of energy density is reached, mass ceases to function. The result is consistent with the observations that expansion exists and is consistent with the QWC aspects that explain the cause of that expansion.
There is no evidence that matter can form from high energy density as the density declines to the matter formation threshold. There is no evidence that matter that might form below that threshold could acquire the same characteristics as the particles in the Standard Particle Model. There is no evidence that galactic structure would form from such particles or that the galaxies would all be moving away from each other throughout the entire expanding arena. This group of aspects of QWC is quite similar to the process of nucleosynthesis that is predicted by Big Bang Theory. Nucleosynthesis is a phenomenon that cannot be reproduced through controlled experiments and but that relies on natural evidence of the events’ occurrence. Observations are being made that support nucleosynthesis and future data produces by the LHC will expand the data. Both BBT and QWC will be modified by LHC data as it unfolds.
For these reasons, QWC passes the observation test based on the allowed range of application of the concept of observation.
Next, the N in CONPTT, Natural: A natural cause (mechanism) must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test.
QWC was developed as a cosmology because the standard cosmology did not address the cause of the observed expansion and implies that there was no space or time before the expansion began. QWC sees those conditions would require something from nothing, a violation of the conservation of energy, or the intervention of the supernatural. QWC predicts that the conservation of energy is a natural law that cannot be violated. The intervention of the supernatural is not consistent with science and would cause BBT to fail the “natural” N of the CONPTT definition of science.
QWC passes the Natural test.
Next, the P in CONPTT, Predictability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event can be used to make specific predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true or false.
Predictability and testing are well established in the scientific method. As mentioned above, many predictions of QWC are not testable. However, each aspect of QWC does pass the Natural test within the acceptable meaning of “natural” in the CONPTT definition of science and so the natural causes and mechanisms included in QWC can be used to make specific predictions.
There are categories of science that don’t completely pass the CONPTT approach. There is Non-Science which covers religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics, False Science described as Pseudoscience, and Emerging Science described as Pre-science.
QWC pass the predictability test which is intended to disqualify areas that do not now and will not normally be testable, not because of the limitations of technology, but because they are belief systems. Though QWC is not yet testable, its predictions do not fall into the category of belief systems. There is no reason to believe that future technological developments will not be able to detect quantum action, quantum waves, the energy background that transmits them, and the predicted thresholds of energy density which control them, i.e. the primary aspects of QWC that are not currently testable.
Next, the first T in CONPTT, Testability: The natural cause (mechanism) of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. Reference to supernatural events or causes are not relevant tests.
QWC does not pass the Testability test of the CONPTT approach. This does not mean that QWC does not qualify as science. The Testability test is defined to disqualify reference to supernatural events or causes, and other causes and mechanism for which there is no existing means of testing. The failure of QWC in this category demotes it into Pre-science because though not current technology can be used to test it, it is likely that future technology will be developed that can test it. If the LHC fails to confirm the Higgs mechanism, then the direction of science technology might be refocused on finding a unifying force, i.e. quantum action.
Next, the second T in CONPTT, Tentativeness: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.
Any aspect of QWC that is tested successfully must be considered tentative and there is no reason for them not to be tentative within this use of the word. Non-tentative results are described as irrefutable, for example, “We know that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, and nothing will change that.”
Based on the CONPTT approach, I find that QWC qualifies as Emerging Science, referred to as Protoscience as opposed to Non-Science which is referred to as Pseudoscience when analyzed by the CONPTT approach.
Last edited: