Response to "The Theory of Ubiquity" by David Butterworth (U.S.A.)

Hello:

The introduction to Mr. Butterworth's paper reads as follows: "Here is a paper from David Butterfield, (E-Mail) explaining a Unified Field Theory which includes an exotic form of space."

Energy and time have gotten a lot of attention from science but I have a hard time visualizing anything as completely "exotic" as space.

Dave talks a lot about infinity in his paper, so before I "dig in", lets discuss infinity, and a few related ideas. Many scientists feel the biggest problems with an infinitely sized universe are that the universe would either slide to all energy or become one big singularity, like Dave's ball of space!

I get the impression when I read some scientific papers that even professionals are inclined to feel an infinite universe, or an infinite group of finite universes interacting with each other might be a solution to the problem of order or "entropy" in the universe.

We should not think for a minute that an infinite universe is a quick solution to the "entropy problem", or for that matter, the presence of complexity in the cosmos. If I took my watch apart, put the pieces in a box and shook the box FOREVER, my watch would NEVER reassemble itself. The parts would go out of tolerance from all the banging and the watch would be junk. Never is a big word- even in an infinite universe.

The "entropy" question, and the question of where order comes from in our universe, or in fact any universe, is a big one. Entropy is linked to the conservation laws and time process. The second law says that orderly systems tend to disorder, not the reverse. My watch coming back together is much the same problem as a broken egg (Humpty Dumpty) coming back together again and leaping on the table, or the Titanic disaster undoing itself.

Organic Evolution flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Conventional wisdom says that the order of the human body is bought at the cost of order elsewhere in the ecological and cosmological system, but where did the order in a Cow, rice or light come from? Essentially, our universal constant, light, imposes order on the universe. That's the bottom line, but HOW? Light doesn't seem to us to have the level of complexity of intelligence- BUT WE ARE FORCED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT DOES. We have no other rational alternative.

In the two/sphere model of Schwarzschild, the "Big Bang" is a white hole, with decreasing rather than increasing entropy (and "reversed" time). "Photons" which we observe, are this same white hole viewed from a cosmologically distant frame. The fact that energy does work and reverses entropy direction is evidence for the Schwarzschld two/sphere geometric model of the universe. So is the fact that we OBSERVE the universe in generally increasing entropy, approaching singularity, while we are at the same time, departing a white hole (the big bang). In two/sphere geometry with inverse mapping and cosmological time separation, we view the cosmos from the OPPOSITE hemisphere.

There is only one thing harder than putting "Humpty Dumpty" together again, and that is bringing him into existence in the first place. We scientists "think", and I use italics, we can understand where life came from. The reality of SR, GR and QM and the presence of complexity in the universe, is that light consisting of Photons is very special stuff. In this discussion, light qualifies as intelligence, or at least the "hand" of intelligence. Julie Andrews sang in the popular musical: "The Sound of Music", "no/thing comes from nothing; nothing ever does...". If we doubt the reality of a programmed resurrection in 7-Dimensions, we should remember that creation was harder, look in a mirror and ponder the marvel of our existence.

Science is the search for rational explanations outside of the mystical and metaphysical. I don't think there is anything particularly metaphysical in a computer, and I'm inclined to feel we are part of a program. Where the "computer" and "program" came from is a matter I will leave with the clergy!

Even we can put a broken egg back together- in three dimensions. Of course an egg exists in more than 3 dimensions...we have to make a great dimensional sacrifice, in terms of the "reality" of an eggs existence to put it back together (by running our video-camera in reverse). We no longer can even hold the egg in our hand, for example.

Chance plays an important but inadequate role in creation. Natural Selection also plays a key role in creation, but scientists have done work which indicates it does not complete the puzzle. Chaos Theory proposes, I believe convincingly, that matter has "self organizing" tendencies. We know that when conditions became favorable for life's existence on Earth, life developed at lightning speed, on a geological time scale. The inescapable conclusion is that the "forces" we find in biological creation are as "fictitious" as the "forces" of Physics; that behind them is something...or from an entropy standpoint- someone, else. In a deterministic 7-D universe, chance, natural selection, and chaos theory are, in a foundational sense, illusory too, and only "real" from our frame of reference.

Isn't it wonderful our universe has just the right mass to allow us to exist? I'm sure most readers have no idea how carefully engineered this universe is, but if anyone wants to read more he or she can study the works of Paul Davies, world renowned Physicist at the University of Alelaide, Australia. This man has the respect of the world scientific community for his objectivity and precision. By the time we read about odds like a billion, billion, trillion, 100 times, or note his observation that a 2% deviation this way or that in the universal mass would have resulted in universal singularity, or being "jolly in the light forever", it will begin to dawn on us just how exotic space, time and energy- in the proportions we find them- ARE.

As I read papers by physicists with excellent credentials, I can see the problems even professionals have with the concept of "space". Space must be respected, carefully evaluated, and its nature understood. First I must point out that the reason space is vast is because we OBSERVE it as vast. The illusory chasm of space and time (really two sides of a single coin) is an energy mass effect observed by complex organisms like ourselves on 4D discontinuous event horizon surfaces at 360 degrees. The universe, because of its singular nature can only be conceived as a tiny and pulsating, but finitely existing event horizon complex. This pulsating momentum of a cosmos of vast mass results in a reality which the observer sees in extreme time and space dilation...time and space SEEM vast to the observer. The nature of singular bits in free fall toward the abyss is to particulate, (as water over a waterfall) into spinning droplets. These atomic particles in turn form atoms, elements, compounds and all of our reality.

In proper time, all we know exists for only a fraction of an earth second, but we view the opposite hemisphere of a two/sphere reality from a cosmological distance in time and space away, and so see a vast universe in incomprehensibly slow motion. The instability of a sequential, programmed collapse, becomes the rock solid, but slowly aging cosmos we understand. In 5 senses, we observe this panorama to unfold slowly, in gorgeous "ultimate reality", our planet.

On this planet, even at 40,000 feet above the Earth, our life expectancy as observers is measured in minutes on the fingers of one hand. This fact was recently underscored by the tragic death of Payne Stewart and company when their Lear 35 lost cabin pressure. Yet at 40,000 feet, the Earth's atmosphere easily sustains flight. I have seen the curvature of the earth begin to appear at near 50,000 feet, and military jets can hit 60,000 feet..even higher...though above 12 miles, control of an aircraft becomes touchy, and oxygen deficiency can initiate "flameout". At 40,000 feet, the density of the Earth's atmosphere approximates that of Mars' atmosphere at the planets surface, and Mars' atmosphere was plenty dense enough at 35 miles to bring down a spacecraft recently when someone made a metric-English unit miscalculation! How can a place where supposedly nothing exists (space) be so important- even if it is exotic?

When I read Dave's paper a year ago, it made an immediate impression. That sphere on page 3 of Dave's paper at first put me in awe, which soon became skepticism, and then awe again. How can the planets "feel" each other through nothing? Space is dark and a black hole is dark: what's really the difference? The truth is that time, space and energy are related, but separate entities. The way we perceive this separation produces the reality we know. The fact that the three ingredients are related but separate considerations mathematically can be seen in the way they are treated in the formulae of General Relativity.

In an important sense, space is a condition created by the relative absence of energy in all its forms. The presence of energy in varying concentrations reduces and or alters the capacity of space to "store" things relative to the "storage" capacity of space where little energy is present. The "storeroom" concept (large storeroom, small storeroom, many boxes, few, large, small etc.) is a good analogy because it is four dimensional, and avoids the concept of space as a substance. If too much matter is present in a given location- as in a Black Hole, space simply ceases to exist by mathematical definition...and in our observation too!

The perceived effect of energies distribution can mathematically be described as the warping or bending of space, but I fear that gives people a very incorrect impression about the nature of space. What we call "space" is defined by the presence, amount and distribution of energy, from our frame by variations in the density of matter and energy. Light, matter and energy can move through space however attenuated; microscopic singularity can be found in all space...no problem, but space cannot, and so far as all the observational evidence indicates, is not itself a substance...it is an observational effect.

If that is true, how is Dave's paper significant? It is VERY significant, for even though I disagree with him about its absolute definition, SPACE IS THE STAGE ON WHICH REALITY EXISTS, and its "shape" precisely and mathematically reflects the presence of matter, energy and time. Dave's approach in "considering space as a substance" can be very useful. Considering the fact that mainline Physics still persists in calling space a "medium", I wouldn't think even the great's of the profession would fault Dave too severely!

Lets look at a second very important reason why Dave's work is significant. Rather than taking the classical approach of "forces" and "particles" at the sub microscopic level, HE IMITATES EINSTEIN'S GEOMETRIC APPROACH in his search for a Unified Field Theory. This is just plain smart. In fact, many scientists believe that some variation on the geometric Approach will be the ultimate solution to the four "force" and "Unified Field" puzzle.

The third reason why Dave's paper is significant is perhaps as important as the others. Those who read my paper: "The Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe" may remember I discussed Dirac's "sewer pipe". To prevent the mathematical collapse of the universe, Dirac proposed a "foundation" of particles. I proposed the "Antiverse", the exact copy of the "Universe" predicted by SR, GR and QM in their "dual" mathematical nature, to perform this "support" function. The formulae of Einstein however demand that the mass of each of the two "hemispheres" of any dual universe be conserved to prevent collapse. This of course means that the stability of a dual universe depends on the conservation of the mass in each of its "hemispheres".

If time, although relative, continues in its endless arrow, and matter/energy on both sides of the universe must be conserved, what then is it which makes and keeps the observed universe truly dynamic?

You guessed it! SPACE! I remember the " Star Wars" scene, where "Luke Skywalker" falls into a spaceship trash compactor. His life became very precarious when the space in the compactor began to get down toward zero! So it is in a universe where the endless, relentless battle between singularity and space/ time continues unabated- forever.

Experiments have been done to see if space is changing in its fundamental property- volume, relative to matter/energy, over time. The jury is still out, but in spite of the fact that these experiments are very tricky, preliminary results indicate that space is changing, little, if at all, however at this time, in the EHU model, we are near the equator of our hemisphere- where little change in the absolute configuration of space would be expected. Our best way to check absolute space is astronomical. As we look outward with our best telescopes and observe galaxies moving away from us near the speed of light, they "smear" and blend together in such a way as we can observe the 360 degree, every direction, inside-out surface of the "Black Hole" of our birth. I would gather that space is pretty tight out at that end of our hemisphere! Talk about a trash compactor, or everywhere becoming nowhere!

Is space infinite (open) as opposed to finite closed and spherical? If it is, General Relativity is DEAD, and Einstein's concept of reality is fatally flawed. In General Relativity, Space. Energy and Time are found in fixed proportions. They can only exist in tandem...as they relate to each other. From the stand point of GR, there is no "outside". Even the concept of "potential space" is forbidden. In fact, it is not the mass of the universe which keeps it together, but the LAWS governing the proportions and relationships of time, space and energy. Space in an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is always observed on geodesics, seemingly flat yet curved with the mass/space relationship eternally just "poised" on the edge of openness. Actually, space in the universe is closed and is observed by us to bounce back and forth in a linear fashion between singularity at the macroscopic and sub-microscopic antipodes (poles).

Daves ball of space 10 Centimeters in diameter is very special, but before we consider Dave's exotic variety, lets look at a "plain" ball of space. "Balls of space" containing free falling particles are pretty popular in the study of General Relativity, in case the reader has not heard!

If we stick our finger into the plain ball of space, it doesn't go anywhere but a few inches. Why?

I'm tempted to laugh, for all kinds of exotic things are going on inside that ball of space, which seem normal to us. The balls space is being acted upon by the presence of the Earth, and the molecules in it, far from being in free fall, are in constant thermal motion- being acted on by energy. One talented teacher of GR, to get something he can reasonably use as an example, talks about a ball of coffee grounds in orbit around the Earth! Still, why doesn't my hand move to the other end of the universe?

In a brief sentence, my hand does not go to the opposite end of the universe because not enough matter/energy is stored in that ball, AT THE RIGHT SCALE, to accomplish anything so astonishing! There are places in the universe where a ball of space 10 centimeters in diameter would behave in exactly the manner Dave describes, but from an engineering standpoint, I don't really think I would care to be nearby! Dave's ball of space is virtually identical to a singularity configuration, where, because of a huge concentration of energy, space collapses and everything goes "down the hole" to emerge in the other Hemisphere of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, billions of light years away. (Actually what goes down, bounces right back- we just can't see it because it now exists in the antiversal hemisphere.) To put this another way, Dave Butterworth's way, space collapses, and matter energy relative to it becomes almost infinitely massive! Mathematically, Dave is on solid ground, and I like solid mathematical ground- even if it seems counterintuitive! Calculations similar to this showed the feasibility of microscopic singularity!

Lets take one parting look at that "ordinary" ball of space, and focus on its center, one microscopic point. Select an atom in that location, and start downward into the realm of the subatomic ...10^-20, 10^-30, 10^-33 centimeter. At this level of scale we notice that our normal ball of space doesn't act so normal anymore. Strange "forces" appear which we hadn't noticed at a larger scale. We are approaching microscopic singularity, which affects all matter and energy in the atomic region.

As our "hemisphere"of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe ages, the combined mass of this residual singularity will begin to increase, in proportion to the decreasing amount of available absolute space in a "hemisphere" of the EHU. Fortunately, most of this "increase" comes just before gravitational collapse of the entire "hemisphere" to a massive black hole/big bang. As the "keel" of our reality "floods" with singularity all other nuclear forces are overcome, atoms, molecules and our entire reality "folds up" and reemerges in the other "hemisphere."

Page 2..."each particle of matter consists of concentrated space". I disagree, because to my knowledge no experimental evidence for such a relationship exists. As I said however, this is a very useful theoretical concept which helps us to evaluate the true meaning of energy/matter, space and time. All evidence science has at this time indicates that energy in its eternal flow "drops the curtain" on space, but the momentum of the ages raises the curtain again and begins a replay of the cosmic performance. Less (or more) available space in a finite, unbounded universe, results in the appearance of new "forces", and energy patterns, or their disappearance. When absolute space changes in volume, the fixed amount of matter/energy in the universe behaves differently.

Page 2.."space is infinite in size". This a very interesting cosmological idea, and anything is certainly possible, but in terms of size, an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is, and must be limited in size and mass, though it is unbounded and eternal, which are related, but not congruent concepts.

Page 2.."let's define a space called a subspace that is somehow trapped within a region of space" etc. This is an interesting concept, and relates to singularity as I have already said. I thought of bubbles of air rising and increasing in size as they move toward the surface of the water as I read this. Cosmologically, we could be talking about "baby universes" more than conditions inside the 7-D Einsteinian Universe.

Page 3..I already pointed out to Dave that in an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, according to the formulae of SR, GR and QM, it would take massive amounts of energy to create the condition he describes in his ball of space. Space in an EHU when compressed, yields nothing, unless it contains something.

Page 4..In an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, the speed of light is related to and defined by the proportion of the mass and energy contained in the universe...although any observer would observe its movement as a "straight" line geodesic (actually a curved line in 7-D).

Page 4: Dave neatly lays out the 7 working rules of his concept. I have enjoyed toying with the idea of a universe being made of universes too, but I've never been so precise about it!

Page 5; "as such a (particle) must contain all the properties of matter, it must have mass...etc"

This is where Dave and I do have a basic disagreement. Remember my definition of space? Space is a mass less condition, but observational reality is created by the presence of energy at certain levels of scale. According to my definition, we can "squeeze" space all we want, and it will still have no mass. Still, lets neglect my ideas and proceed...

Page 5: "only subspaces of the same type, either sourcing or sinking virtual light can contain each other". The concept of sourcing and sinking light is developed from the plus/ minus character of GR (General Relativity) and has to do with not only energy flow, but the direction in which gravity "pulls". Because of the symmetry inherent in the GR equations, and Schwarzschlds two/ sphere geometry "sourcing" and "sinking" subspaces exist in equal numbers and would be the essence, in this model, of the two "hemispheres": of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.

Page 5: "The size (and presumably the mass as previously defined) of the particle may not be finite" (in this model). Heavens to mergatroid! We have a nifty model of the photon on the horizon! Still, in a finite universe we must use the word "almost" with "infinite".

Page 5: "The influence of a particle extends throughout space". This is a very important GR principle, proved experimentally this year. Each Photon in an Einsteinian universe is a focus of the whole reality...the underlying principle of "Frames of reference". An instantly propagating quantum gravity is implied.

Page 5:"IT MAY BE, THAT IN SOME MULTIPLE DIMENSIONAL WAY, THE PARTICLE MAY BE EXTENDED THROUGH SPACE AS WELL". This is NOT intuition. Dave is speaking here through the "eyes" of mathematics, and he is actually discussing the relation of the photon to the foundation of the topological structure and entropy workings of the universe. This is VERY profound.

Page 5: Now Dave notes, almost with surprise, how his little model fits GR with a Planck Realm and Schwarzschild geometry, but the rest of us have seen it coming, right?

Page 6: Dave notes the similarity of his theoretical investigation to the work of PAM Dirac, and begins to tinker with the theoretical basis of "string theory".

Bottom of Page 7: "The first subspace cannot expand past the second subspace at the w=0 coordinates. This produces an hourglass intersection where both spaces are pressing ..etc." My first paper on the Einstein Hyperspherical Universe, done before singularity was even well understood, in 1967, was entitled "The Hourglass Universe" and detailed a similar idea.