Response by Sam Cox to "Pure Information" by Victor L. Sherman, Robert Gordon and Glynn Harmon; (U.S.A).

Hello!

This article by Sherman, Gordon and Harmon is very interesting. They summarize the standard model, and I agree it is in very serious trouble, if only because it is, to a large extent Ad Hoc and not fully Einsteinian!

All three authors, so far as I can see have a problem common in cosmology. Its hard to keep in mind the fact that every frame of reference in an Einsteinian universe, at least, is truly real from its own perspective, and that some, light for example, are really special. By way of example, Ned Wright at UCLA told me that the observations don't square with an oscillating universe- and posted strong evidence favoring an "empty" model. I reminded him that from the frame of reference of light Einstein's universe is static. I also pointed out that our observations are done by the courtesy of light- and that the character of light influences observations. He didn't comment, but I know he understands what I am talking about! Sherman, Harmon and Gordon, I'm sure, know that at the speed of light, time ceases to pass, and ones frame of reference encompasses the universe.

I personally am unhappy with any attempt to romanticize singularity, and give it some kind of magical property. From an external frame of reference, we can infer the existence of singularity, but to see any but the most basic information stored there seems unreasonable...and the idea has little mathematical justification either, however this fact has not prevented those who seek order in a 4-D universe from working the complex singularity idea to death!

Cosmologists are as curious as kids, (and should be!) wondering where all this order in the universe came from. Looking to singularity is, I firmly believe, grasping at straws....but these gentlemen are not the only ones speculating about the "potential" of singularity! They are in pretty good company! (See the April 97 "Scientific American").

Mathematically, a singularity is a point. When a star 3 times the current mass of the sun or larger cannot any longer support itself with the energy produced by nuclear fusion, it undergoes gravitational collapse to a point beyond 10^-33 centimeter...the Planck Horizon, and within a period of time (under investigation) departs our side of space time.

Can the authors imagine falling with a collapsing body, 1.5 million miles in diameter, at millions of degrees K, into nothing? If they fell into a pot of molten steel, the elements of their bodies would remain much better organized! In fact, not even quarks survive such an experience. Only photons of light, stopped cold from any normal movement, change phase and flow like a fluid under such conditions. The only way to be "safe" from singularity is to be distant from it, or for the singularity to be attenuated. From a mathematical standpoint, "distance" and "attenuation" are two sides of the same coin. and relate to space and energy flow in the universe. I would imagine most people would agree with me that such a "black hole" is a poor place to look for order of more than the most basic kind, but as I have noted, some of the best minds in science are doing just that!

I watched men install forms for concrete at the college today, and remembered my paper. In an eternal, dual universe, there is no need to go looking for order in nothingness. Photons emerging on the "Big Bang" side of a "Black Hole" pour like concrete into the existing framework of space and time,and form a carbon copy of the matter which went in- with polarity reversed. My computer is plugged into the wall. Electrons are pumped into it- and usable information comes out, and is stored within the existing equipment. The information can go in or out to another computer via the same flow of Electrons. The dual universe operates on a similar principle.

When the authors talk about superluminal and even infinite speeds, they are engaging in speculation, and as I just said, because of light's pervasive influence in the universe, such speculation may be unnecessary as a means of finding the order they desire. I believe Tachyons may exist too, but firmly feel we should take things one thing at a time, and examine the properties of light first. Although we cannot say we fully understand light, scientists know, as the authors themselves pointed out, that photons of light are connected. That is a matter of observation.

I see no need to be mystical about it. To credit organized, low entropy behavior to some mass less infinite "something".."pure information" is very questionable. Its just as easy for me to believe, based on the experimental evidence, that all the forms of matter/energy we observe are really coded and related information, photons, particles, atoms, molecules...just as available instantaneously from the frame of reference of light at the Andromeda Galaxy as here on Earth. We can logically conclude from recent experiments that we might as well be making our home inside a computer!

Talk about response, control, and pure information! Two photons might as well be parts of the rack and pinion suspension system in a high performance car. When one moves, the other instantly (from the frame of reference of light, moves too!) This universe of ours is a highly coordinated, very complex mechanical device, and so are we...after all, we are a part of it! Do we need a new theory? This one is very interesting, but I believe we have plenty to work with in SR, GR and QM!

Our more mathematically inclined readers who would like to survey Special Relativity, may do so on Ned Wrights Website. Ned is the Vice-Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at the University of California, Los Angeles: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm . Those who would like to take a careful look at an excellent survey of General Relativity might enjoy the one done by John Baez at: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/outline2.html .

The fact that an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is dual and eternal makes us REAL- and conserves order. The endless sine curve intersections on the glory side and young side of the universe give "body" to our existence. Our present home is a spectacular place, and its fun being 12.5 years old (one human year per billion cosmological years) coming of age and all that, but wait until we turn 60 billion! The expanding universe where we live, emerging from the "Big Bang" is the young side of the Einsteinian Universe. On this side we wake up to endless possibilities. On the other, more mature side, we rest and reflect- in certainty! An Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe removes any doubts as to whether intelligent life will survive billions of years into the future- it will!

Singularity, or what the writers refer to as "Pure Information" is only the foundation of an Einsteinian reality. From a theorist's point of view, I feel that what is called "Dark Matter" by astronomers is the combined mass of microscopic singularity, that contained in black holes, and that still present at the "poles" or antipodes of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe. The rotational characteristics of galaxies require that much of the "dark matter" be positioned with other, already detected matter. We also know, for reasons relating to the formulas of relativity that while we are running out of observable space in the universe, as much as 90% of the mass of the universe is unaccounted for. Such observations, along with our knowledge of the 7-D EHU cosmology suggests large amounts of universal mass are "tied up" in singularity.

SINGULARITY, DESPITE ITS MASS (DETECTABLE FROM OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE) "floats", AT THE FOCUS BETWEEN THE "HEMISPHERES" OF THE HYPERSPHERICAL UNIVERSE. SINCE IT IS AT THE "FULCRUM" OF THE UNIVERSE, ITS MASS WHEN WEIGHING AN ORANGE WOULD ONLY BE DETECTABLE BY ITS EFFECTS WITHIN THE ATOM AND IN SPACE TIME AS A WHOLE. (The WHOLE Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, BOTH hemispheres; rotational effects of galaxies, etc.)

I said previously, I think singularity is best thought of, from an engineering standpoint, as a fluid, a kooky, strange fluid. To use an engineering analogy relating to fluids, space in the universe is like an almost infinite number of sinks, complete with traps. During the Big Bang's unraveling explosion, the traps fill with singularity and form a stable, multifaceted floor, a vortex boundary of the dual universe. No "water" in this situation goes either way, down or up (from one "hemisphere" of the universe to the other). The configuration is stable and forms the foundation of our cathedral of the sky. Particles at the sub-microscopic level, however are affected by the presence of singularity, position themselves in stable geometric orientations around it, and experience relativistic effects. When atoms are "cooked" in stars, they combine, again according to the patterns dictated by electromagnetic energy and the mathematical parameters of the universe, to form the atoms needed to make us.

As the universe ages, aggregates of matter in large stars, then clusters begin to pour "down into the singularity sinks" at an increasing number of locations in the universe. As it does, space on the other side expands and the first side spatially contracts ( the hourglass effect, which I will discuss further in my remarks on "The Theory of Ubiquity".) If you have surveyed GR, don't forget the ball of free falling particles! The momentum of the ages (The law of the conservation of matter and energy-and everything else) is the only "force" at work here.

Gradually, then faster and faster like the Titanic sinking, the old universe collapses into the new. Note how well our sink analogy holds up! At first the sink can hold the singularity, even as matter pours faster and faster into the increasing vastness of the black hole, reversing polarity and moving into the new hemisphere, "backing out" into expanding space time because of time reversal. From our frame of reference in time the singularity "grows" as it fills the sink, and the transfer process gets far "behind". Eventually, however, all the sinks overflow, atomic structure everywhere collapses, the entire hemisphere "sinks" and a new cycle begins. The "concussion" of the big bang in either hemisphere is so distant in the microscopic singularity of the other, that it is little noticed, except that entropy flow reverses in the fully extended "hemisphere".. THE ARROW OF TIME FLOWS IN A CONSTANT BUT CIRCULAR DIRECTION, just as space and the flow of energy are configured. An observer in one "hemisphere" observing the other would, however, see the seemingly incongruous! (See my comments on "Chrono-Theory")

Although singularity is nothingness, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT not only is ALL SINGULARITY CONNECTED MATHEMATICALLY AND IN REALITY WITH EVERY OTHER SINGULARITY, but AS COMPRESSED ENERGY (photons), SINGULARITY DOES SHARE SOME OF THE REMARKABLE QUALITIES OF LIGHT. Only from our frame of reference in space/time, and with singularity at a macroscopic and microscopic distance, can we "see" perspective in the universe. The analogy of 3-d glasses at the movie was a good one, because it is the effect of viewing light within space time which creates our sensation of perspective, space, and the passage of time. However, to repeat, the information "stored" by singularity in the universe is limited by its mathematical nature, to the "foundational". Most information in the 7-D universe is stored in light and its derivatives.

I'm mystified as to why our authors look for the source of energy for the big bang! We must not forget the law of the Conservation of matter and energy. Why doesn't a satellite fall? The energy and momentum of the universe is in constant unstoppable flow. Nevertheless, because the universe is finite, it probably requires entropy adjustments- just as satellites need adjustments.

When the authors say the speed of light becomes a "limiting factor" they are, I believe, forgetting the properties of light ...it is instantly and omni presently everywhere. Its difficult for me to understand how that could be "limiting"...although ANY frame of reference has some limitations.

I believe there are some very good ideas in the paper. The authors point in a general way beyond Einstein, as I feel sooner or later we must go. They may be completely right. Subspace Theorists have interesting ideas, but they make me a bit nervous with all their talk about infinity too. Maybe its me ...probably its me. That's just my bias ...my frame of reference. I'm limited and finite, and I think everything else is too!

I believe these men have raised important issues. They can rest assured many great scientists- and ALL Cosmologists, share their interest in singularity!

Sincerely, Sam Cox