Expanding Dimensional Hypercubes

Expanding Hypercubes

Nobody said:

***************
MP,

The Lloyd I referred to is Lloyd Gillespie at this site. He proposed a near-zero temperature of infinite space as the contractive trigger for the big bang, as an acceleration towards the common center increases the temperature and density of matter or space to he point where it reverses radially. Yet, the problem is with the "common center" of infinite space, of which it lacks, so the mechanics only work in a finite model - ingeniously I would say.

I understand that you don't wish to get into first causes, but I feel that first causes are important in understanding first philosophy which in turn is important in understanding the "things" of the universe. I agree that references to inside and/or outside of space make no sense when everything is space, but the same also must apply to inward and/or outward motion of time when everything is time-dependent, which is the prerequisite condition in formulating necessary differentials, that you seem to advocate in your theory. To make a hypercube from a point to a line to a square to a cube to a hypercube requires velocities that an infinite universe lacks, where all points of the universe remain connected leaving no room for even extremely short-lived fluctuations of the virtual vacuum, as well as any direction for the waves to propagate radially or gravitationally.

I agree with your assessment of proper time, but the accelerated force would either have to be eternal or never existent. Fluctuations can't just happen, but are time-dependent upon position becoming zero which would occur in all quarters of infinite spacetime; and would cancel in no time because there are no lapses between the universes as you've made note of.
***************

The first problem I have with Lloyd Gillespie's argument is the definition of temperature of space. Of course, temperature requires equilibrium, space has to have defined energy levels, equilibrium across an infinite space requires infinite amount of time to be reached, etc. The second is of course what you just said about the center of an infinite manifold. The third is the lack of definition on the dimensionality of the said space. Fourth is that, by the usage of temperature as a state variable triggering the Big Bang or Universe collapse , I suspect he thinks that there are massive particles in this early (pre-Big Bang Universe), thus this might not be a purely geometrical universe. Of course, I don't believe one can solve the problems of physics while using mass, charge and other non geometric concepts.

This looks like a 3D Universe that cools down, gravitationally collapses, heats up and restarts an expansion...:) If that is the case, there would be tremendous anisotropy in the mass distribution of the 3D Universe...:) If this were a 4D Universe, then the 3D expanding universe wouldn't be thin and we would see 4D aberration. Needless to say, distance and mass distribution has been enough to make gravitational collapse not possible. Experimental evidence is the observed expansion in the distance of Galaxies. If all the Galaxies were to cool down to near-zero temperature, that wouldn't make this gravitational collapse more likely.

I am interested in having people capable of understanding the current universe from a geometrical perspective. The initial universe is simple by definition. It hasn't been considered that way because people had too many forces (imaginary forces) and unnecessary supersymmetry requirements.

I proposed a simple model that explains the Universe. There is no need to explain metric fluctuations. Here one can and should use the Antropic Principle. This is a changing Universe, if this wasn't the case, then the Universe wouldn't change and nothing would come into existence.

If you want to discuss how likely are uncertainty based metric fluctuations in an infinite amount of time and/or infinite amount of space, then I would say that a fluctuation is not only likely but it is a certainty...

The question reduces to the simple question of why there is a Cosmological Time or why there is a Cosmological Time/Space. I don't have an answer for that and I don't believe one can explain any better than by the use of a circular reasoning. Thus I don't agree with your assessment that understanding first causes would lead to a higher level of understanding of current "things"... This is the current line of thinking and it is due to the need of unifying all the forces. I've already did that.

By the way, fluctuations can and do just happen - it is called the Uncertainty Principle and it appears every time one cannot use points to describe events, that is, one cannot define things with infinite precision... This Universe of ours is imprecise by nature...:)

There are no accelerating forces for the expanding hyperspherical universe in the same way that there isn't a need for an accelerating force to describe the expansion of a circularly expanding wave in a pond. One just need a restoring force to create a propagating wave. The circular aspect is just due to the symmetry of the problem.

Fluctuations are not time dependent, but the original fluctuation is... The original fluctuation is the beginning of proper time....

It took a very rare fluctuation to set the Universe in motion. The moment following the initial fluctuation could see either the fluctuation disappear or decay. If the initial fluctuation decays into microscopic dilators, they would interact according to electromagnetism and gravitation depending upon their spin (zero or half). If the fluctuation is smaller than an specific radius, electromagnetism and gravitation have the same strength. Like in Humpty Dumpty, if the fluctuation is larger than the supersymmetry 4D radius, nobody can put Humpty Dumpty together again. Dilators are coherences between 4d space metric deformations. Since this system is not constrained, deformations will propagate at the natural speed (the speed of light). Whatever doesn't escape recombination will fly always from the center at the speed of light. Very simple, with a simple physical analogy of a wave on a pond.

I don't understand this sentence either

" I agree that references to inside and/or outside of space make no sense when everything is space, but the same also must apply to inward and/or outward motion of time when everything is time-dependent, which is the prerequisite condition in formulating necessary differentials, that you seem to advocate in your theory. To make a hypercube from a point to a line to a square to a cube to a hypercube requires velocities that an infinite universe lacks, where all points of the universe remain connected leaving no room for even extremely short-lived fluctuations of the virtual vacuum, as well as any direction for the waves to propagate radially or gravitationally."

What is inward and/or outward motion of time? Time doesn't move...:) The space I envision is just Cartesian space and there isn't a known velocity for dimension creation.

I don't know where did you came with the velocity of space creation in your hypercube argument. In any event, I provided a lightspeed limited version of the dynamics in which the hyperspherical lightspeed expanding 3D Universe would be at the edge of space. I am agnostic with respect to which one of those two models are the correct one.

I cannot fully comment on your last sentence because I cannot understand it. Quarters of infinite space? Time dependent fluctutations?

Nobody said,
***************
MP,

There seems to be alot of misunderstandings with regards to the terminology, but I agree with the general assessment of it. I didn't mean all that much in opposition regarding the quarters and time fluctuations. I simply equate time and motion, but agree that time doesn't-move; therefore there can be no literal motion in the universe - space is static and can never change.

The velocities require changes of position in a direction, but there are no such directions because the origin of the coordinate systems carries throughout all coordinate times without lapses. Like you said, there is no known velocity for dimension creation. In a sense I equate proper time and coordinate time because I don't believe there is such a thing as an original fluctuation if fluctuations equal time. All distances are time-dependent and all times are distance-dependent; therefore all coordinate frames are cartesian points of origin.
***************

Cheers,

MP