Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Reality of Space

The Reality of Space

A reader asked me this nice and deep question:

I'm an idealist/figmentalist and always wonder where people such as yourself (scientists) think that the space for such expansion came from and also what sort of container is it all in, or do you think of the space your expansion requires is a natural state of reality or non-reality?

Remember if you use the word Infinity (or the sideways 8) you are using a ? and not really proposing anything.

I will paraphrase it to make sure I get all the meaning of it..>:)

The first sentence has to do with the old age question about what is beyond the Universe. In the past, this question had to do with a static universe. My theory proposes a topology in which theUniverse is embedded within a 4D spatial manifold and expanding at the speed of light. The visible Universe lies within the traveling hypersurface.

Under these circumstances, my answer that beyond the visible universe lies more universe (3D spatial Universe) should be complemented with answering the question on what is beyond the expanding 4D spatial shockwave Universe.

Call me silly, but I take an agnostic position with respect to that. It is necessary to know that there is unadulterated 4D space, that is, nothing that dephases the dilaton field originating in our 3D hypersphere. It is easy to be an agnostic with respect to things that you cannot know. The model cannot distinguish between an expanding hyperspherical disturbance traveling at the speed of light radially in an undisturbed 4D infinite Cartesial manifold from the same topology where "space" is created as the 3D Shockwave Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe travels. Hence I am agnostic about the problem of infinite 4D Cartesian manifold or an expanding 4D Cartesian Manifold bounded by our 3D Shockwave Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe.

In my Cosmogenesis theory, I proposed that the 4D spatial manifold would come out of a dimensional transition (zeroD to 4D). Some said that anything a mathematician can concoct has a physical equivalent. I don't believe that. I believe that some of the things we can mathematically construct have physical equivalents. For example, it is easy to imagine fluctuations of zero in one dimension. Just pick up a ruler and for each point with a positive coordinate, there is another with a negative coordinate. In 3D or 4D things are equally easy, just pick up a 3D or 4D vector and its additive complement. For each vector/antivector the sum is zero, thus any vector/antivector can be considered a fluctuation of Zero in 1D, 3D or 4D.

There is a small difficulty in thinking in terms of zero spatial dimensions. In zero dimensions, a vector doesn't point in any direction, it is just a number. Here the vector/antivector paradigm is replaced by a number and minus that number.

In my Cosmogenesis theory I considered that the initial fluctuation was accompanied by a 0D to 4D dimensional transition which provided the required entropic space for the Universe to unfold.

This is the subset of all mathematical constructs which I decided to give a physical meaning in my Cosmogenesis Theory. It is not the last word, it is not the first word...:) It is just an intellectually satisfying model.

The dimensional transition associated with the beginning of the Universe make the Universe unique during its existence. Hence I don't expect this Universe to collide with another nor the 3D Universe hypersurface to be just one out of many traveling Universes.

In my model, all matter will eventuall relax or recombine and the dimensional transition will reverse and another cycle will start.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The second clause is a statement, bold but meaningless, in the sense that proposing that the Universe is infinite or that the Universe is asymptotically large (unknown dimension) has been done before. It is true, it has been proposed before that the Universe is infinite.

On that occasion, the infinite Universe was a 3D Universe full of stuff..:) In my case, the infinite universe is an empty manifold where our 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe is embedded. Our 3D hypersurface is limited and finite.

These are not insignificant differences that makes my infinite different from the Infinite of Nicolas de Cues. Not all 8 laying down are equal.

The last point is about the Reality of Space. In my theory everything we hold near and dear and real is made up of space. If you consider yourself real, then space is real.

Non-reality is just what one has in one's mind. I am the oposite of the solipstistic thinker. The only thing that has an intrinsic reality is outside your perception/mind. What we perceive is at best a poor representation of reality.

If you ever observed a stroboscopic light iluminating a vibrating/rotating object, you know that your percetion of reality can be easily tricked.

The fundamental dilator follows the same paradigm to fool all mankind for eons into thinking that a Proton is a Proton and an Electron is an Electron, when they are just two phases of the same shape shifting rotating metric deformation coherence...:)

Of course, the support for that conclusion is the Unification Equations for Gravity and Electromagnetism in my papers.

Cheers,

MP

Post a Comment