An Explanation of the Universe

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jameylynne

Guest
An Explanation of the Universe
By: Dr. Jamey Lynne Bishop, Ph.D.
In this paper I will present an explanation of the birth, existence and end of the Universe as it is known today. There will be a discussion of several disciplines including Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, Astrophysics, and ending with a brief glimpse of Spirituality. The latter may seem out of place in such a paper but I believe that a discussion of the scientific disciplines would be incomplete without the perspective of human sentience.
Big Bang
Drop a rock into the center of a pond. Watch the ripples. From a definite center, they spread out in an ever widening circle. The speed of the ripple is constant. Now imagine two points on the ripple about an inch apart when the ripple is just a foot wide. When the ripple is two feet wide, the points are more than two inches apart. In fact, if you measure across the curve of the ripple, in the time it takes for the ripple to double in size, those two points move apart at over four times the speed of the ripple.

This is the old, fifth grade equation, πr2. In two dimensions, that means that as the radius grows, the circumference grows exponentially. In three dimensions the equation is πr3. In four dimensions the equation is πr4. This results in a very large Universe in around 14.5 billion years. I propose what you have just visualized is how the Universe grows as represented in two dimensions. This also debunks the Inflation theory that seeks to explain the size of the Universe by imagining a time when the big bang expanded faster than the speed of light and dark energy that seeks to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe.
But nobody dropped a rock. Modern theory proposes parallel, three dimensional membranes rippling in a fourth dimension. 14.5 billion years ago they made contact. That contact resulted in the big bang. The energy released spread out eventually condensing into matter which then became stars that aggregated into galaxies under the influence of dark matter. The questions this idea raises are huge; “What made contact?” “What is energy?” “How does energy condense?” “What is matter?” And so on. Entirely left unexplored is the question, “Why did it happen only once?” The obvious answer is, it didn’t.
Let’s go back to the pond. Instead of one rock, let’s throw in a handful of gravel. Each piece of gravel creates its own ripple. These ripples overlap as they spread out. Where the ripples (or waves, actually) reinforce each other, there is more energy in the water. Where the waves cancel each other out there is less energy in that part of the water. If matter is concentrated energy, then why would that not be the same as where the waves reinforce each other? Where there are areas where the waves cancel each other, there would be no matter. A look at the visible Universe shows precisely this effect; long strings and concentrations of galaxies separated by empty space. So why do our telescopes show a complicated network of galaxies and not a big bubble of waves? Remember how two nearby points on the same wave seem to move away from each other faster than the wave moves? The miniscule portion of the Universe that can be seen from earth is only a very tiny area stretching 14.5 billion light years in every direction. The rest of the four dimensional wave front we are riding in is beyond our ability to observe.
Yes, I said, “A four dimensional wave front.” Our existence is within not a three dimensional sphere but a four dimensional hypersphere. That is why everywhere we look in the Universe, in every direction, we see similar stars, galaxies, and nebulae. If our Universe was contained in a three dimensional sphere, we would be existing in only two dimensions. As it is, up, down, sideways and anywhere in between, at the furthest limits our telescopes can reach, we see relatively small collections of stars; infant galaxies fading into darkness. That is the Universe as it was billions of years ago; the time it has taken for their light and other electromagnetic energy to reach Earth.
What determines the speed of light? I propose the speed of the bubble’s expansion and the density of local space determines the speed of light. And, just as a wave on a pond, that speed is dependent on the initial force that created the wave, limited by the density of the water, or whatever the wave is traveling through. By extrapolation, the density of the three-dimensional membrane the wave of our Universe is traveling through together with the force of the impacts between our membrane and the others rippling through four-dimensional space determines the speed of light. That raises the question, given that if the membrane of our Universe may be of uniform density, would not the speed of light the same throughout the Universe? And, if the density of space-time is not uniform for some reason, would not the speed of light be measurably different depending on where it is measured?
Einstein proposed that light is affected by gravity. Astronomers have observed this in dozens of ways from the way stars appear to move when the sun passes between the stars and the earth and from galactic distortions seen as light reaches us from distant galaxies. We can ask, “How else is light affected by gravity?” But first we have to ask, “What is gravity?”
Isaac Newton said gravity is the attractive property of matter like magnetism. Einstein said gravity is a distortion of space-time like heavy objects on a rubber sheet. I propose that gravity is neither. If, as I propose, matter is the result of the confluence of waves in the membrane of space-time, then the density of space-time is influenced by matter and matter alters the density of space-time. Gravity is the resistance of space-time on the high wave energy of matter just as the water constrains the ripples on a pond. Increasing resistance results in increasing density and gives rise to the postulate that the speed of light is variable and dependent on the concentration of matter.
Experimentally, this could be observed easily by measuring the speed of light somewhere else besides the surface of the Earth which not only has its own gravity, but sits deep within the overwhelming influence of the sun’s gravity as well as the gravity field of the entire galaxy. Just how far from the earth, or the sun or the galaxy a measuring device would have to be to accurately determine the effect of space-time density on the speed of light depends entirely on the sensitivity of the measuring device itself. Perhaps had such an instrument been placed aboard the Voyager space craft this question would already have been answered. As it is, the speed of light has only been measured right here on this tiny grain of sand called Earth and any curve drawn from a single point is suspect.
Let’s examine the paradigm that has been developed. Protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and all the rest of the particle zoo are just concentrated, overlapping and interfering waves in the fabric of space-time. The resistance of space-time to the pressure of these wave confluences results in the phenomenon of gravity and higher space-time density. These higher energy waves travel faster through denser space-time and tend to congregate reinforcing each other to create galaxies, stars, and planets. So what’s next?
Black Holes, Singularities, and other Myths
Current cosmological theory says a Black Hole is the consequence of high gravity crushing a massive object at least three times the size of our Sun into a singularity. It is called a Black Hole because nothing, not even light can escape. A singularity is infinitely smaller than an electron with a radius of “0” and extremely high gravity.
Well, maybe not.
Theoretical physicists like to play with numbers and equations in an attempt to define and understand reality. In their attempts to formulate mathematical laws they set up complex mathematical formulae and try to discover new truths about the Universe. One minor problem plagues theoretical physics. In an attempt to explain singularities, the mathematics requires division by zero. No matter what operations theoreticians use, no matter how many thousands of steps they go through in their calculations, they end up dividing by zero and get answers of infinity. All this frustration results from the simple fallacy that is the singularity; there is no such thing.
Max Plank, a theoretical physicist over fifty years ago determined that the smallest division of reality was really small; smaller than an atom, smaller than a photon, smaller than a neutrino. Plank discovered that the absolute value for smallness is 10-33 centimeters. Why have current theoretical physicists forgotten this? Perhaps they are simply enamored with the idea of the singularity.
Such things have happened before. Using the bible as a guide, Bishop Usher in the 16th century calculated that age of the earth at roughly 6,000 years. No one questioned the idea seriously for over 100 years in spite of evidence to the contrary. The idea that the earth was flat was disproved by the Greeks a thousand years before Columbus and Magellan. Some people still wonder why the Chinese do not fall off.
Let’s say Max Plank is correct and Stephen Hawking is wrong. What happens? Rather than being continuous like the stroke of a paint brush, the Universe is grainy like newsprint. Singularities do not exist. The Universe is pixilated and therefore theoretical physicists need no longer feel like idiots when their equations do not work; yet the singularity idea persists.
But what about Black Holes; what happens when matter and space-time density reach 10-33 centimeters? Instead of infinite density and infinite gravity, there is a limit, perfectly reasonable, that still prevents anything, even light from escaping; up to a point. Even Stephen Hawking understands that minute amounts of matter and energy escape Black Holes leading to their evaporation. His reasoning is that quantum space continually births particles and anti-particles that instantly annihilate each other. Those near a Black Hole sometimes miss the annihilation when one of the particles falls into the Black Hole; although why he thinks that the anti-particle is more likely to fall in he fails to explain.
Here is a simpler idea; A Black Hole is just a big balloon. Space-time has a density limit. Matter riding the wave of the Big Bang concentrates. Particle waves coalescing into a Black Hole reach this limit as space-time pressure from within and without equalize. What this means is that just inside the event horizon is a very turbulent place; within the zone of turbulence though, nothing. Then, as the waves pile up, very small portions are reflected like our pond wave does when hitting the shoreline. Over time, the turbulence creates particle waves that escape the event horizon. These minute particle waves move beyond the event horizon and disperse while most of the particle waves pile up against the compressibility limit of space-time. Eventually, enough particle waves escape that the pressure of space-time overcomes the remaining particle waves and the Black Hole evaporates.
Space-time’s compressibility limit theory has another benefit; an explanation of why stars go nova. Conventional cosmology assumes without explanation that stars over a certain size use up their fuel and collapse until they blow apart. Isn’t it curious that there is no explanation given as to why collapsing stars blow up? The elasticity of space-time is not even considered. A more obvious explanation is that the particle waves in a star, no longer held apart by the energy of fusion, compress space-time which then rebounds spreading most of the contents of the star across space. What particle waves are left in the star’s former position are then in balance with space-time pressure; either a white dwarf that slowly cools or a Black Hole that slowly evaporates depending on the density of the remaining particle waves.
This theory also neatly solves a major conundrum in theoretical physics; how does quantum mechanics relate to cosmology and astrophysics? Simply by removing the erroneous assumption of the concept of the singularity and accepting that the Universe is pixilated, the equations work out very neatly. However, with so much invested in the singularity idea it may be some time before this theory becomes accepted; too many reputations are on the line.
The End
So, how far will this three dimensional bubble called the Universe expand? Is there a shoreline? Just as two nearby points on a pond wave seem to move apart faster than the wave expands, every particle wave in the Universe moves apart from its neighbor faster and faster. Eventually, from the perspective of the Earth, if it exists in this remote future, the sky will darken; the stars fading away beyond the curvature of the Big Bang wave front. Planets move apart and disappear into the darkness. The earth expands becoming a fog that dissipates into the void. Is this the end?
Not necessarily. The membranes still ripple. Collisions happen. New interference patterns are formed. New bubbles expand. Membrane theory proposes eleven dimensions. I believe it would be foolish in the extreme to assume that the membrane containing the wave we are riding will not be collided with again. New particle waves form. New interference patterns collide. New galaxies, planets and stars form. The Universe is a dynamic place; ever active, ever expanding creating new opportunities for life, intelligence, and understanding. As quantum theory suggests, sentience may be the organizing principle of the Multiverse and what is sentience but the collective conscious of the Universe? What new vistas will unfold? What new adventures are yet to be encountered? What new discoveries are yet to be made? This writer has reached the current limits of her understanding. As Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” This is my theory, go forth and do likewise.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
they end up dividing by zero and get answers of infinity.
Negative Infinity or Positive Infinity? 1/(1/2), 1/(1/3), 1/(1/4), ... is a positive sequence approaching zero. 1/(-1/2), 1/(-1/3), 1/(-1/4), ... is a negative sequence approaching zero.

We either have to pick a sign for n/0 randomly or we have to acknowledge that:

n/0 != ∞

n/0 is undefined
∞ is not a real number
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
I don't know if it's "u-worthy". There's not much there-there. Certainly not publication ready. It's a brief summary of real work, maybe a paragraph (had to call in this format, or lack there-of) that makes no predictions, has nothing testable, and isn't terribly useful, and then more summary of other real work.

Nothing incredibly objectionable. Waiting for some meat. A loooong way from an "explanation of the universe", imho.
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
"This also debunks the Inflation theory that seeks to explain the size of the Universe by imagining a time when the big bang expanded faster than the speed of light and dark energy that seeks to explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe."

The first problem I see is with this statement about debunking inflation and dark energy. I don't know if it's really true that the water ripple model explains the size of the universe without inflation. Also, inflation seems necessary in current theory to explain the flatness of the universe. And does the ripple model explain accelerating expansion without any continuing input from something like dark energy?
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
Jameylynne":2toug3vs said:
An Explanation of the Universe
By: Dr. Jamey Lynne Bishop, Ph.D.
...In their attempts to formulate mathematical laws they set up complex mathematical formulae and try to discover new truths about the Universe. One minor problem plagues theoretical physics. In an attempt to explain singularities, the mathematics requires division by zero. No matter what operations theoreticians use, no matter how many thousands of steps they go through in their calculations, they end up dividing by zero and get answers of infinity. All this frustration results from the simple fallacy that is the singularity; there is no such thing...
It's obvious that you've invested a lot of thought and effort in your post. Regarding the above quoted excerpt, we have one member (Dryson) who asserts that division be zero produces the dividend's identity (ie, the same quantity). His posts on this assertion now reside in the "unexplained" category.

Regardless whether singularities exist or don't exist, your "ripple wave" conjecture about the expansion of the universe will have to be backed up by some pretty rigorous mathematics before anyone here will consider it a valid alternate theory of cosmic inflation. It will have to deal with both the "horizon problem" as well as the observed "flatness problem".

Chris
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
adrenalynn":v4j78c6x said:
I don't know if it's "u-worthy". There's not much there-there. Certainly not publication ready. It's a brief summary of real work, maybe a paragraph (had to call in this format, or lack there-of) that makes no predictions, has nothing testable, and isn't terribly useful, and then more summary of other real work.

Nothing incredibly objectionable. Waiting for some meat. A loooong way from an "explanation of the universe", imho.
I disagree. When I see ...

Drop a rock into the center of a pond. Watch the ripples. From a definite center, they spread out in an ever widening circle. The speed of the ripple is constant. Now imagine two points on the ripple about an inch apart when the ripple is just a foot wide. When the ripple is two feet wide, the points are more than two inches apart. In fact, if you measure across the curve of the ripple, in the time it takes for the ripple to double in size, those two points move apart at over four times the speed of the ripple. This is the old, fifth grade equation, πr2. In two dimensions, that means that as the radius grows, the circumference grows exponentially.

I think it's U time. Last I checked the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r, it grows proportionally. Obviously the PHD isn't in some field dealing with grade school geometry. Metaphysics perhaps ?

The rest of his (her ?) musings I've not waded through in sufficient detail to comment on, but in addition to C_II's objection I'd add that inflation solves yet another problem in cosmology.
 
J

Jerromy

Guest
Singularities do not exist.
A singularity is the opposite of normal empty space... no one, not even Steven Hawking, really knows what is inside a black hole so therefore they call the mathematically indefinable area "a singularity".
What determines the speed of light?
Anything in the path of travel that decreases it's speed from the maximum c.
Would not the speed of light be measurably different depending on where it is measured?
It never has been measured to be different, in any direction, from any reference frame.
Increasing resistance results in increasing density.
Increasing resistance increases friction which increases temperature which causes all matter to expand which makes it less dense... so how would space become more dense?
So, how far will this three dimensional bubble called the Universe expand?
As far as it will no matter who thinks what of it. A bubble assumes a finite region in 3D space where the area =pi*r[super]3[/super]. The radius of that bubble of which can be seen is about 13.7 billion light-years, no one can say what might be beyond that and somehow I doubt we are pretty much in the center of everything we see surrounded by nothing whether other "universes" exist beyond our perception or not.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
good catch on the only math there. I obviously skimmed to fast. Or not fast enough.

And when I mentioned "summary of real work" or "other work" - I meant real work done by real theoretical physicists. Realized when I read my reply that it wasn't clear.
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
Jerromy":qlgch35n said:
So, how far will this three dimensional bubble called the Universe expand?
As far as it will no matter who thinks what of it. A bubble assumes a finite region in 3D space where the area =pi*r[super]3[/super]. The radius of that bubble of which can be seen is about 13.7 billion light-years, no one can say what might be beyond that and somehow I doubt we are pretty much in the center of everything we see surrounded by nothing whether other "universes" exist beyond our perception or not.
I think that the area of a sphere is actually calculated as 4*pi*r[super]2[/super], the volume is calculated as 4/3*pi*r[super]3[/super].

As I understand it, the general consensus is that beyond our observable universe there is just a lot more universe. How much more is a matter of conjecture. According to the Wikipedia article on the universe here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws
The universe is very large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.
In a separate Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_light_horizon I found the following statement:
According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10[super]-37[/super] seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe at this time was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire Universe's size is at least 10[super]23[/super] times larger than the size of the observable Universe.
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts