Theory of Four Dimensional Electromagnetic Universe.

Jun 1, 2024
13
2
15
Visit site
Here is a summary of a theory published in 2 parts on the origin and expansion of the universe.

This theory (First part [1] and Second part [2]), drastically simplifies the existing universe and explains its origin without resorting to a singularity.

In summary, the universe originated from a quantum vacuum that has always existed, through the spontaneous generation of four initial TWs (Temporal electomagnetic Waves), which, by exerting radiation pressure, caused the creation of 4D space and its continuous expansion. This radiation pressure represents the dark energy (Λ) of the ΛCDM model.

The overall energy balance of the universe always remains zero, as was zero at its origin (Big Bang).

The figure below shows why, in a 4D universe, 4 tws are needed for a homogeneous expansion.

main-qimg-17033c30119eb68f921a05b15c4447f3


Figure 1) In Figure A, the 2D surface of the sphere represents the two spatial dimensions and is analogous to the 3D portion of the 4D Universe. To achieve homogeneous negative radiation pressure (thick arrows) on the 2D spatial part (spherical surface), three TWs along three perpendicular temporal trajectories are required. Similarly, to achieve homogeneous pressure on the 1D part (circumference) of a hypothetical 2D universe (Figure B), two perpendicular TWs are required. By extrapolation, it can be inferred that in the 4D universe, four initial TWs perpendicular to each other are necessary.

The universe of which we are part, consists of four-dimensional space (4D universe) and stationary electromagnetic waves oscillating at the lowest possible frequency along one of the four spatial dimensions that we perceive as time (TW). According to the restricted holographic principle (see Maglione D. [1]), in the 3D portion of the universe where we reside, we have that:

  • The energy of TWs corresponds to mass, and thus each TW corresponds to a quantum of matter.
  • There are only two types of TWs with phases of −90° and +90° corresponding to negative and positive charge, respectively.
In second part of this theory [2], are also developed thermodynamic equations, including those to determine the temperatures of the 4D universe at various redshifts (Z). These calculated temperatures all agree with those published for Z of 0.89, 3.025 and 6.34.

main-qimg-286362e8056c1a8cbed02344fc120ab5


To know the references mentioned in the table above, see [2] Maglione D. Theory of the four-dimensional electromagnetic universe, part II: Temporal waves as the foundation of the creation and expansion of the universe. J Mod Appl Phys. 2024; 7(1):1-17.

In this theory, the quanta of matter corresponding to TWs as they appear to us in the 3D portion of the 4D universe, represents to the so-called dark matter. These quanta, which form around already formed and rotating cosmic masses, would constitute the so-called halos of dark matter present around galaxies. They follow the rotation of the galactic mass itself, thus without "falling" towards its centre and without the possibility of aggregating to the mass around which they rotate.

On the other hand, since these quanta are very small (with a diameter equal to the Planck length), they can only be observed and interact with electromagnetic waves having wavelengths equal to, or shorter than the Planck length, the only ones with such resolving power. Radiation of such high energy essentially does not exist in nature, which would explain why these quanta of matter (That is, dark matter) would not be observable, despite maintaining gravitational action. In fact, the most energetic gamma-ray emission ever detected is reported from the Vela pulsar [Collaboration TH et.al]. It reaches at least 20 teraelectronvolts, corresponding to a wavelength of approximately 10^{-20}m much higher than the Planck length that is 10^{-35}m.

The TWs act simultaneously in two opposite zones of the 4D universe (see for Example Figure below).

main-qimg-160a93dd9496a4bef7b61fa087423b7b


Figure 2) Schematic representation of two TWs with opposite phases (± 𝜋/2) appearing at the antipodes in the 3D portion of the 4D universe as quanta of matter with opposite electric charges (circles with inside + or −). The two TWs are positioned at a constant distance r from each other. The magnitude of the electric field (symbols + or −) is maximum at the centre of the 4D universe and decreases gradually as one approaches the 3D portion of the 4D universe. Yellow arrows represent the magnetic attraction force between the 2 TWs along the space dimension. The blue arrows represent the electric attraction force between the two quanta of matter corresponding to the 2 TWs. The summation of all magnetic forces (Yellow arrows) is equal to twice the electric force acting between the oppositely charged matters quanta placed at the antipodes of the 4D universe. The magnetic field of the TWs is not depicted.

From this it follows that the 4D universe is specular, meaning that at the antipodes there could exist another Earth, another solar system, identical to ours. This is because, in this theory, time is simply the radius of the 4D universe, so the evolutionary process that led to the aforementioned formations must be identical on both antipodes. In other words, to the antipodes to this earth, there could be another me writing this paper.

4D multiverse​

In the chapter titled "Uncertainty Principle and Stability of TWs,", Maglione D. we has shown that all the TWs are stable. Through the Bohr-Wigner Uncertainty Principle relation and using the energy of the first 4 TWs (see Eq.10 in [1] ),
main-qimg-efa366ca65460c470d86178aec524cac

we can determine the average statistical frequency f with which the 4 TWs can be generated, the creation of a 4D universe from the quantum vacuum. Since in this case the uncertainty on time indicates the average frequency at which the event occurs, we have:

main-qimg-cf60154d9045781f1e92675dea86c4f0

1. https://www.tsijournals.com/article...ical-fourdimensional-universe-can-explain.pdf
2. https://www.pulsus.com/scholarly-ar...as-the-foundation-of-the-creation-and-exp.pdf
3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-02052-3
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: adseipsum
Jan 2, 2024
475
77
260
Visit site
Yes, I understand that (see my post suggesting a hypersphere as the shape of our universe). In that post, I provide some evidence that this is the case by calculating the increase in circumference (the expansion of 3D space) for say, a 1-second increase in radius. The result is a good representation of the Hubble Constant.
But, more important I point out that the surface of a hypersphere is 3 dimensional. That is our space would be the surface of a Hypersphere.
In your diagram, you indicated the surface as 2D. For a hypersphere, you should label it 3D. It's not conjecture; it's a fact :)
I hope this helps but for the rest you operate beyond my education I think
 
Jun 1, 2024
13
2
15
Visit site
Ok. That diagram I wants to explain through an extrapolation starting from a hypothetical two-dimensional universe
therefore three-dimensional, that to have a homogeneous expansion in a 4D universe, not 2 (2D universe), not 3 (3D universe), but 4 TWs are necessary. See the legend to the figure. On the other hand, I couldn't draw a hypersphere on a sheet of paper😁
 
Jun 1, 2024
13
2
15
Visit site
ok, but if you read my publications you will see that I am talking exactly about a 4D hyperspherical universe, where we live in the 3D part whose volume is 2(pi^2)(R^3) (3D hypersurface) and not 4 /3 pi R^3.
 
Tangentially veering the picture and model a little bit:

LSI and NASA are seriously looking into "warp drive" capabilities:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiJFo-kaJBQ


Mostly, I think, having to do with constant acceleration fission or fusion power drive, an electric drive . . . a gravity-SPACE drive.

Think of the universe as a bubble with geometric curvature to the spherical outer shell rim of it, like the rim of a expanding rounding wheel. Stephen Hawking placed a point-portal central 'travel hub' down the spokes within the curvature of the spherical wheel-rim and called it, "The 'Grand Central Station' of the Universe" through which all will travel (all spokes, all lanes, will meet in the pass of passing (of passage)), including the traveler Albert Einstein when he took his "mind's eye" trip to the speed of light.

Most astrophysicists today would have us travel the curvatures of the wheel rim (the curvatures of the observable universe (u) around to our various destination-world-points in the universe. But NOT the so many visionaries who would have us travel the spokes through the 'travel hub', "The Grand Central Station of the Universe," to our various destinations in the universe. That wormhole is (those wormholes are) ultimately inertia-less "bridging" (quantum entangled "spooky action at a distance").... To be cont'd, maybe.
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
In summary, the universe originated from a quantum vacuum that has always existed

You have a contradiction in terms, if you accept that the Universe is "all there is".

If you want to pursue a valid argument, you must first define universe.
for example, do you mean 'observable universe'?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: COLGeek
Jun 1, 2024
13
2
15
Visit site
Sorry, but where is contradiction?
The definition of universe is everywhere. The following one comes from the most important Italian encyclopedia:
Universe In astronomy, the set of celestial bodies (planets, stars, galaxies, dust and diffuse gas) that surrounds the Earth. The astronomical study of the physical U. aims to provide a descriptive and interpretative framework of its spatial structure and its temporal evolution. The branch of science that deals with this study, cosmology, uses both astronomical observations, such as, for example, the positions and intensities of light radiation of galaxies, and physical principles derived from laboratory experiments and mathematical inductions.
However, I don't understand what you want to ask
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
In summary, the universe originated from a quantum vacuum that has always existed

How can something which is "all there is" originate out of something and somewhere else?

Unless it originated out of itself, and then the statement is semantically uselessly playing around with words. The territory is not the map.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanwaterman
Jun 1, 2024
13
2
15
Visit site
I didn't write that the universe was born from itself, but from the quantum vacuum that has always existed. On the other hand, this is not my hypothesis, but that of many others.
You can find this concept explained in simple terms around; for example on: https://bigthink.com/13-8/universe-quantum-fluctuation/
However, for further clarification and if you haven't already done so, read my 2 publications.


 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I hesitate to waste my time pointing out that "all there is" cannot originate from an "all there is" which existed before "all there is" existed.

"All there is" means the entirety of spacetime including, of course, the time element.

This whole field is open to senseless imaginings which fiddle around with semantically meaningless questions.

to spend time doing small things that are not important or necessary

"fiddle around" Source: Cambridge Dictionary.

Cat :)

Universe (Wikipedia)
The universe is all of space and time and their contents. It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galactic filaments.
 
Last edited:
Science has led to ignorance, big time, before, and opinion has initiated correcting the course of science.

The biggest reach of guessing into unproven science in the last 100 hundred years, and still going strong, is the Big Bang Theory of a "once upon a magical time creation of the universe!" If you want full bore pseudo-science, full bore junk science, it is the always being presented as a proven cosmological physical FACT of the matter, "once upon a magical time creation of the universe!"

My OPINION is that 'Creation' (what to many -- including me from a lifetime of Orwellian dictated habit -- call the Universe (U) and/or universe (u) (uni-verse: actually "one turn", a single turn of many turns ever rounding in and out of itself)) is always in creation; has always been in creation; will always be in an eternal instant of spontaneous creation.

If you have a scientific death wish and watch for it and all else including Mankind, keep up with "once upon a magical time creation of the universe!" That and many other similar things to it that are supposed "science!" but in fact are nothing but religious imagination!
--------------------------------

Borrowing from and paraphrasing Helmuth von Moltke: The threat was considered insignificant, not to say non-existent, the measures to meet it were therefore completely meaningless. A strictly logical conclusion such as madmen are liable to arrive at after starting from radically wrong premises.

Throughout history, the so-called experts in the many sciences, particularly as science has advanced, have gotten millions and millions killed . . . even more than the men of peace, like Gandhi among many others of history! We shouldn't retreat from science, no more than a thousand years ago anyone retreated from their religions (yes, "science" will be religion, and religion "science," to many), but we desperately need a space frontier of Exodus from the "'religion' of 'science'"!
 
Last edited:
I, and many more today, are realizing (as they did during the latest frontier Rennaissance and Reformation periods, they couldn't care less about what these priests sermonize!

The closed minded, closed world systemic, priests!

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

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2024
13
2
15
Visit site
Science has led to ignorance, big time, before, and opinion has initiated correcting the course of science.

The biggest reach of guessing into unproven science in the last 100 hundred years, and still going strong, is the Big Bang Theory of a "once upon a magical time creation of the universe!" If you want full bore pseudo-science, full bore junk science, it is the always being presented as a proven cosmological physical FACT of the matter, "once upon a magical time creation of the universe!"

My OPINION is that 'Creation' (what to many -- including me from a lifetime of Orwellian dictated habit -- call the Universe (U) and/or universe (u) (uni-verse: actually "one turn", a single turn of many turns ever rounding in and out of itself)) is always in creation; has always been in creation; will always be in an eternal instant of spontaneous creation.

If you have a scientific death wish and watch for it and all else including Mankind, keep up with "once upon a magical time creation of the universe!" That and many other similar things to it that are supposed "science!" but in fact are nothing but religious imagination!
--------------------------------

Borrowing from and paraphrasing Helmuth von Moltke: The threat was considered insignificant, not to say non-existent, the measures to meet it were therefore completely meaningless. A strictly logical conclusion such as madmen are liable to arrive at after starting from radically wrong premises.

Throughout history, the so-called experts in the many sciences, particularly as science has advanced, have gotten millions and millions killed . . . even more than the men of peace, like Gandhi among many others of history! We shouldn't retreat from science, no more than a thousand years ago anyone retreated from their religions (yes, "science" will be religion, and religion "science," to many), but we desperately need a space frontier of Exodus from the "'religion' of 'science'"!
Sorry, but your arguments are just chatter without any 'scientific-mathematical theory behind them.' Fortunately, you prefaced it by saying "it's my opinion", and I don't comment on your opinion precisely because it is yours.
As I mentioned before, the universe (whatever its definition, which is not important) is derived from a quantum vacuum that has always existed, meaning it is independent of the time that was created along with the universe. This is not my theory, but that of several scientists (note, not philosophers), including Carlo Rovelli, one of the discoverers of the Higgs boson, the "God particle."

The Concept of Timeless Quantum Vacuum

Quantum and Cosmological Theories
: Some theories suggest that the quantum vacuum exists in a context that might not be strictly tied to our concept of time. In other words, the quantum vacuum could have a sort of "timeless" existence or be a fundamental condition that does not depend on our universe and its specific time.

Cosmological Models: Some advanced cosmological models hypothesize that the quantum vacuum might exist in a form of "pre-time" or in a state where time, as we perceive it, was not yet defined. These models attempt to explore how the universe and time itself might have emerged from a quantum vacuum state.

References and Further Reading

Carlo Rovelli - "The Order of Time" (2018)
:
  • Rovelli explores how time is not an absolute and universal dimension, but rather emergent and relative. This book provides an in-depth view of how our understanding of time might have changed with quantum physics and relativity.
Lawrence Krauss - "A Universe from Nothing" (2012):
  • Krauss discusses how the universe might have emerged from a state of "nothingness" in a quantum sense and how the concept of time could be related to this emergence.
Alan Guth - Inflation Articles:
  • Guth's and other articles on inflation models can provide insights into how the universe might have emerged from quantum fluctuations in a state that precedes our understanding of time.
This is science; yours is just philosophy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Sorry, but your arguments are just chatter without any 'scientific-mathematical theory behind them.' Fortunately, you prefaced it by saying "it's my opinion", and I don't comment on your opinion precisely because it is yours.
As I mentioned before, the universe (whatever its definition, which is not important) is derived from a quantum vacuum that has always existed, meaning it is independent of the time that was created along with the universe. This is not my theory, but that of several scientists (note, not philosophers), including Carlo Rovelli, one of the discoverers of the Higgs boson, the "God particle."

The Concept of Timeless Quantum Vacuum

Quantum and Cosmological Theories
: Some theories suggest that the quantum vacuum exists in a context that might not be strictly tied to our concept of time. In other words, the quantum vacuum could have a sort of "timeless" existence or be a fundamental condition that does not depend on our universe and its specific time.

Cosmological Models: Some advanced cosmological models hypothesize that the quantum vacuum might exist in a form of "pre-time" or in a state where time, as we perceive it, was not yet defined. These models attempt to explore how the universe and time itself might have emerged from a quantum vacuum state.

References and Further Reading

Carlo Rovelli - "The Order of Time" (2018)
:
  • Rovelli explores how time is not an absolute and universal dimension, but rather emergent and relative. This book provides an in-depth view of how our understanding of time might have changed with quantum physics and relativity.
Lawrence Krauss - "A Universe from Nothing" (2012):
  • Krauss discusses how the universe might have emerged from a state of "nothingness" in a quantum sense and how the concept of time could be related to this emergence.
Alan Guth - Inflation Articles:
  • Guth's and other articles on inflation models can provide insights into how the universe might have emerged from quantum fluctuations in a state that precedes our understanding of time.
This is science; yours is just philosophy.
I'm obviously not of your religion, so do not preach to me, priest (a true believer monk at the very least and wanna-be priest)! As Moses once said playing Charlton Heston in a movie, "Open the frontier and let my people go!" ("Pay now, or you will pay a lot bigger payment later!")
--------------------------

Over the years here, I think it's become pretty obvious I'm a frontiers-man in my old/new age ("Fight enough dragons you become a dragon: Stare into the Abyss, the Abyss stares into you." I'm happy enough with the first after seventy odd years of a wide reading and study, and wouldn't do without the horizon infinities of the second!)
 
Last edited:

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts