FAQs
Q1. Is the 'average Normal state' equivalent to the Maximium Entropy State of statistical thermodynamics?
Assuming that we are talking about the maximum lack of order of the energy available in the universe, i.e. that can be used? I don't think this relates to the Normal state in my theory because the Normal state refers to a geometric structure, not energy levels. However, the order of energy in the universe would effect the normal state because it will effect matter/space interactions. I think the general consensus is that the universe's entropy in slowly increasing and will eventually die a heat death, but a normal space will still be around dead planets and stars .
Q2. Is there one Singularity or many and what is inside/outside?
The Big Bang is conjectured to have originated from a singularity; however, a black hole, for example, is also conjectured to have a singularity at its core. Can you have separation inside a singularity? Why do I need to invoke a singularity anyway?
I think that there is only one singularity that everything evolves from (including other universes) because it provides a springboard from 'nothingness' to start off dimensional events. I think the singularity is not an object, but is a probable state requiring no dimensions to exist, hence no inside or outside. I think a black hole is unlikely to have a singularity in its core (probably something similar), otherwise it would upset the first laws of thermodynamics because of the singularity's probability of gaining mass or kinetic energy within our universe.See the article below:
QUOTE A: Alex Vilenkin at Tufts University proposed in 1983 that our space-time was created out of a 'nothingness' so complete that even its dimensionality was undefined. In 1984, Steven Hawkings at Cambridge and James Hartle at UCSB came to a similar conclusion through a series of quantum mechanical calculations. They described the geometric state of the universe in terms of a wave-function which specified the probability for space-time to have one of an infinite number of possible geometries. A major problem with the ordinary Big Bang theory was that the universe emerged from a state where space and time vanished and the density of the universe became infinite; a state called the Singularity. Hawkings and Hartle were able to show that this Big Bang singularity represented a specific kind of geometry which would become smeared-out in space-time due to quantum indeterminacy. The universe seemed to emerge from a non-singular state of 'nothingness' similar to the undefined state proposed by Vilenkin. The physicist Frank Wilczyk expresses this remarkable situation the best by saying that, " The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable.
Whether this is a viable explanation is for other theorists. Those terms 'Nothing' or 'Nothingness' may be beyond our comprehension and may be where our 4-D understanding is not possible!? It may be a state of existence outside any dimensions? or possibly only in our minds?
Q3. Can Matter/Energy and Time/Space exist without the other? Can space only be defined by the presence of matter, must matter occupy 'space' ?Matter must occupy space to be separated and to create more space. If the BB theory is correct all matter and energy were in the same form of high energy 'soup' ? They were also bound together with no intermediate 'space'. It is thought that space and time were formed after the energy dropped to a critical level and began expanding, thus creating space and time. We can only observe the continuation of the process from our viewpoint within those dimensions.
Q4 Why does the space get compressed? I don't understand?Space doesn't get compressed, this is just a way of interpreting the gravitational interactions in the same way that we use contour lines on maps. Space has no substance, but see the next question.
Q5 Does space have a substance?
It certainly has no mass but is it just 'emptiness'? Is it the 'fabric' which allows matter to exist or matter that allows space to exist? Without the 'fabric' :
It would not be possible to distort it,
Young's slits or other splitting technique for a single photon and similar could not happen,
There would be no 'material' for the waves that make up all matter to oscillate on.
Matter is not a 'solid object' - that is just how we perceive it. It is atoms and space but can also be mathematically represented as a complex probability wave localised in space. Experimental evidence for virtual particle pairs / anti-particles and the wavelike nature of protons and electrons is very strong. The other three fundamental forces, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces, also require that something 'connects' objects across 'space'.
Perhaps, without matter there is no space or emptiness that exists. There is a problem in thinking space can exist somewhere when there is no matter. 'Somewhere' implies a relative position within objects, otherwise its position cannot be determined. We can only imagine in our 4 dimensions and theorise the rest. The argument applies to atoms as well as planets and stars. I agree matter can be described by probability waves, but this is a way of defining matter and does not effect my theory. If we exist within a singularity, then all points inside it occupy zero time and space are 'connected' but relatively separated.
The movement of matter and EM waves through space is determined by the Normal spatial geometry and Recovery effects, which are in turn determined by the surrounding masses and movements, but ultimately they are all effected by the total mass of the universe and the rate of expansion.
Q6 How is the movement of matter and EM waves through space determined by the Normal spatial geometry and Recovery effects and why? What is the mechanism?
For the universe to be stable, the movement and amount of matter and energy within must be stable on average. It's rather like achieving global temperature equalization on Earth, each turbulent area looks unstable, but temperature distribution must reach an equalisation between solar input and radiant output. Similarly the universe is the sum of it's mass and energy which cannot be changed (but can be converted). Space is created by this matter therefore must also have a Normal state which free matter may move through and either come to rest in or find an intermediate stable state, such as in orbit.
Coming to rest is a relative stillness to another object(s). I think it is possible for an object to come to rest within say a sphere of objects imposing equal forces on the single object in the centre, similarly groups of objects may come to rest in a universal stage. Eventually, of course, things explode, collide, attract, etc and the rest state is changed, but there will always be an average 'normal' state that all objects will tend towards under the overall influence of the stable universe.
Its difficult to explain with conventional thinking about space. As mentioned, everything will return to Normal space because of the total effect of gravitational influences from the universe. Bare in mind that space is created by the relative motion of matter moving apart (part of my theory) so is not a substance but a state. Earth cannot return to Normal space because it has found a stable condition orbiting the Sun , but is 'creating' space around the Sun in conjunction with the other planets, etc. The gravitational effect is simply the fact that space is the state between objects moving apart (requiring a force that converts into space, which in Earth's case is centrifugal). So relative motion is not required to create space but instead creates the geometric gradient in a stable state. Similarly, on Earth, you, standing on the surface, are also not moving relatively to Earth but are also in a stable state within the gradient between you and Earth and held there by the force of Earth on you (required to maintain the gradient to Normal space) .
Q7 What happened before the Big Bang then?
Before the Big Bang there was no 'space' (according to theorists). See QUOTE A in Q2 .
Q8 Can a singularity provide an explanation of the expanding universe?
I think we all exist inside a singularity and that the expansion that we experience is in fact an INspansion! Space can only 'exist' when matter separates, e.g. after the big bang. There is a weird possibility that if matter is inspanding at the speed of light, then zero space and time and infinite mass are relatively speaking not conflicting with the state of a singularity!? Our relative viewpoint will be that the outer regions of our universe is expanding away faster the further away it is (which is what is being observed now) - we are just goldfish looking out (or in?).
My theory is that there is only one singularity that everything evolves from (including other universes). I think the singularity is not an object, but is a probable state requiring no dimensions to exist, hence no inside or outside. Thus, a singularity (or something similar) is required as the spring board from 'nothingness'. See the previous Hawkin's statement in Q2 - QUOTE A.
I also think a black hole is unlikely to have a singularity in its core, otherwise it would upset the first laws of thermodynamics because of the singularity's probability of gaining mass or kinetic energy within our universe.
Q9 How does this theory relate to the Hubble Sphere?
A Hubble sphere is defined as the range over which spherically-symmetrical quantum waves propagate. Is all space is only defined within a single Hubble Sphere (HS) or multiple HSs? It is a requirement for photons to be massless in a HS (see Higgs particles theory later for photon mass explanation).
Can matter within the HS create space? Also, if photons are massless, what happens between them when they move apart? Or is the sphere too theoretical and cumbersome with no practical application, other than mathematical. Also, the sphere is conveniently large, which means that normal space flight calculations are unaffected.
In the Wikipeedia, the 'Hubble Sphere' is defined as the distance at which the recession velocity v equals the speed of light. DH=c/H(t) which suggests the whole of the universe -
however,an article I found suggested that the universe is made up of many HSs - not one?: at http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO2PDF/V13N2HAR.pdfConclusion - It is possible to model the current cosmological redshift as an energy decrease per distance based on the interaction of spherical quantum waves, which are postulated to define mass-energy density based on previous investigations [1]. In this paper, quantum waves are postulated to have a limited range of Ru = 1.9 × 10^26 meters, which defines a Hubble sphere around a point of observation, where the observation of distant objects appears to be redshifted with reference to our local sphere. The redshift is due to the reduced interaction between quantum waves of our local sphere...
Q10 Can the universe 'INspand' from a Singularity
The concept of a 'singularity' is that dimensions are 1/infinity, therefore all objects appear to be superimposed and separation is not possible, but if there was a relative time and space difference between objects, it would be possible.
The singularity appears to be nothing, thus it has no inside or outside, but does appear to exist. But, as long as the 'nothing' rule isn't broken, the sum of the singularity can add up to zero, which relativity allows and Inspansion can occur at the speed of light creatin zero space and time.
Q11 How does this theory relate to Quantum mechanics?
I think that space and time can be usefully theorised but it seems wrong to assign them with behaviour when it is the matter and energy that determine the characteristics.
Shroedinger's Eigenvalue equation shows us where a wave function represents the probability distribution of a wave-particle. It's a well understood, well studied and fundamental part of quantum mechanics, established 70-odd years ago. I cannot argue with the mathematics of quantum mechanics: the question still is - why does space-time behave this way?
Are matter and energy just perturbations of space-time, can they be separated? The wavefunction in the Shroedinger equation inextricably links matter/energy and time/position, essentially through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Matter,energy, time and position are linked and Shoedinger's equation defines that. This link supports my idea that space (and time) are created by matter and energy, hence they are inseparable?
Q12 Will Higgs Fields/Particles versus a Parallel Universe Explain Dark Matter?
For those unfamiliar with Higgs fields and particles, refer to the following links:
A Simple definition at http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae304.cfm
The Higgs Field http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/higgs_boson.html
Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
This appears to be just a way of analysing what we 'see', but does offer an explanation of how mass can be gained by photons ,etc in motion and why the speed of EM waves are constant. It does however suggest that 'space' is more than 'emptiness' . Does the Higgs Field end at the Hubble Sphere?
If it can be proved that Higgs particles exist, then this might explain dark matter. Were these particles created at the Big Bang?
.
xxxx