Response by Sam Cox to "The Infinite Time Cosmology" by L.H. Neese (U.S.A.)
Hello!
An Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is eternal in the sense that it never began and never will cease either, but I don't like to use the word infinite, because it implies a linear quality to some people, and time "flow" in an Einsteinaian Universe is circular. In fact, time, space and energy flow as described in General Relativity are all circular, so they all contribute to the eternal quality of the universe. However the AMOUNTS of time, space and energy in an Einsteinian universe are all finite.
The Universe according to Einstein is based on a model that does not perfectly reflect, although it approximates conditions in the real universe. This model includes four ingredients. These are Matter, Energy, Space and Time. Two of these ingredients have mass: Matter and Energy. Two are mass less in the model: Space and Time. The General Relativity model permits values plus and minus, from zero to infinity.
Einstein realized that the GR model did not reflect actual conditions in the universe, and said so with usual tongue in cheek humor: "Only two things are infinite; human folly and the universe- and I'm not sure about the universe!" Positive and negative General Relativity do reflect actual conditions in the universe, for sound mathematical, theoretical and engineering reasons as PAM Dirac (Who was an engineer) found out with his "sewer pipe" dilemma! However, zero to infinity the universe is not!
Lets look at the formula E=mc2....closely! This kind of simple equation is a proportion- the significance of which the world found out at Hiroshima. Cosmologically, it is also a proportion: All the Energy in the universe is equal to the mass of all the matter in the universe multiplied by the speed of light squared. If that doesn't ring a bell, we can solve the equation for c (our precisely measured universal constant- the speed of light)...c=the square root of all the energy in the universe divided by all the matter in the universe. We know that the speed of light is a FINITE, known number, so neither the total amount of energy in the universe, nor the total amount of matter can be infinite numbers! In fact, because the correct proportion of Matter and Energy is known, it is possible to solve this equation for the mass of the universe- and compare it with figures scientists get from astronomical observations. Thus we can determine what percentage of the universe has been detected.
As a result, we can see that within a few orders of magnitude, the universe space-wise, goes not from zero to infinity as in the GR model, but from 10-33 Cm. to 1043 Cm or so in radius. This means a singularity is NOT a geometric point as in the model of GR and the universe does not extend to infinity. Nevertheless, the universe is defined in GR as proceeding from everywhere to nowhere, so there is nothing: no potential space, no pseudo-space, outside it.
Space and time, while mass less, are defined in GR as having a circular "momentum" or direction of motion- not linear. Thus we conclude that the universe is not only finite in mass, but limited in the sense it is unbounded, HYPERSPHERICAL- I.E. existing as a sphere in four or more dimensions. Because of the conservation laws, the universe continues in motion forever, making it eternal- though finite and unbounded. "Any object, once set in motion, will continue in motion, unless acted upon...etc."
The sum total of all the matter and all the energy in the universe is a constant- and finite.
How about the second law...Orderly systems tend to disorder? Just as with the first law, where we had to add energy to matter to make the law valid in an Einsteinian Universe, the second law requires major revision in an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.
Remember what Stephen Hawking said: The universe just is!? From the frame of reference of light, the universe is like a seed, a videotape, or computer software downloaded into eternity! Everything in an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, including orderly systems, exists forever. Time is an "illusion", created by existence under certain conditions and within certain frames of reference below the speed of light. In an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, order, like mass, therefore, is a conserved quantity, with dimensional characteristics. Our hemisphere (and frame of reference) in the universe is a place of great uncertainty and unlimited possibilities. The other "hemisphere," the Antiverse is a place of certainty, completeness and limited possibilities. Order "flows" via light from the region of higher complexity to the area of lower complexity...order, like water, seeks its level.
In this way, light, having instant accessibility to both hemispheres, coming from the complex Antiverse, imposes order on matter in the Universe, creating "organic evolution", which seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The complex "organisms" so created, are in reality, seeding open universes, within the master universe. Although these organisms are open, and their existence terminates in what we call "death", in an ultimate sense they share in the eternal nature of the universe and exist permanently, though their existence is intermittent (occupies specific coordinates), and the quality and nature of their consciousness varies. On a universal scale, through the presence of light, consciousness, and great powers of observation exist everywhere, and in each frame of reference, permitting the universe to be defined, and causing it to exist.
On our side of the HSU, orderly systems tend to disorder while biological complexity increases. On the other side, in the Antiverse, biological complexity decreases, but disorderly systems tend to reorganize as orderly systems...Humpty Dumpty comes together again.
I refer to Humpty Dumpty many times in my discussions of Entropy phenomena, in memory of Charles L. Dodgson, the brilliant, pre-Einsteinian mathematician who created (as Lewis Carroll) Alice In Wonderland. His lectures were dry as tinder, but as Lewis Carroll, he gave life to singularities as rabbit-holes, probability theory as a Chess board with players and cards, scaling factors, as Alice fell to the bottom of the hole and found a too small door, the antiverse- a strange world on the other side of the mirror (image) and of course, Humpty Dumpty, who had a great fall, and spoke of unbirthdays..."How can a man be born when he is old; can he enter into his mothers womb the second time and be born?"
It is not so far from Lewis Carroll to Stephen Hawking as the reader might think! Stephens most recent mathematical work reveals a "time-like" singularity on the Einsteinan Hyperspherical Universe, (a dual universe "seven-sphere" or seven dimensional sphere) which may, in reality be an Entropy reversal singularity of exactly the kind I have just described. Come to think of it, the existence of singularity is a major issue in Mr. Neese's paper!
Honestly, I cannot understand why singularity (and the "Big Bang") is such a problem for many scientists. I'll say this: singularity is no problem for mathematicians, in fact, singularity is a core concept of an Einsteinian Universe. If the "Big Bang" hadn't been discovered, I would really be worrying about the validity of Einsteinian Cosmology! The "Big Bang" was necessary to create Hydrogen, Helium and Deuterium. Moreover the Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence in the heavens which is just too powerful for any scientist to ignore. Coupled with the predictions of Einsteins formulae- already validated by billions of dollars of carefully conducted experiments, I think we must take the reality of singularity at face value. Finally, much of the mass of the universe must be tied up in singularity at the poles of the hypersphere and other key locations to account for the motions and rotational characteristics of the galaxies, and galactic groups.
I have personally read: "A Universe on Overdrive" by Richard Talcott, one of Mr. Neese's references. For readers who are unaware, this article relates observational data from a variety of Supernova explosions in galaxies at varying distances from the earth. It is proposed that this data indicates the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating, implying the presence of a cosmological constant. I'm a firm believer, for valid theoretical reasons, in Einstein's "Cosmological Constant". Because the universe is so vast, I predict the CC will be found to be very small...but of great importance to the organization and stability of the EHU. In fact, its discovery, which may be but months or a few years away, will be another proof of the veracity of Einsteinian Cosmology. Acceleration outward, if confirmed, is completely counterintuitive in a 4-Dimensional universe- and totally expected in 7-Dimensions, for in the 7-D model, half the universe is expanding outward toward what to it is not a "Big Bang" but a "Black Hole"!
A supernova explosion is triggered by the release of Neutrinos- huge amounts of them from the unstable core of a huge star which has become less and less stable as it switches from the fusion of Hydrogen to Helium to the creation of other increasingly heavy elements, carbon, oxygen and even iron.
I must give credit for much basic work on Stellar fusion to Sir Fred Hoyle! He found that carbon is created from three Helium nuclei, but that under ordinary circumstances carbon won't form from Helium- or anything else! This is kind of unfortunate, because we are a form of carbon based life! In order for Carbon to form in any workable amount, certain resonance's must occur at temperatures of millions of degrees in the heart of potential supernovas. When Fred discovered through his calculations that the exact resonance's needed to form carbon- and us- were present in the heart of pre-supernovas, he remarked that "somebody had to have been monkeying with the laws of nature".
The characteristics of Neutrinos were created at the big bang. If the mass of the universe wasn't exactly right, neutrinos would fly straight into space without disrupting the outer gaseous layers of a supernova, in which case, we wouldn't have happened either- Carbon or no Carbon.
As it is, a supernova begins to unravel when Neutrinos are released from the heart of the pre supernova. The Neutrinos disrupt the outer layers of gas in the stellar atmosphere and fling them into space, with carbon and all the elements necessary for life. Thus lightened, the supernova really becomes unglued and explodes with increasing velocity, as it is lightened by the loss of huge and increasing amounts of mass. All concepts must be carefully evaluated, before we conclude that the "Cosmological Constant" is responsible for what we observe in Supernova explosions.
I like the cosmological concept of "displacement", but I view it differently than Mr. Neese. Each hemisphere of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe "floats" on and balances the other, solving Mr. Dirac's "sewer pipe" problem. From the standpoint of the conservation laws, nothing really is necessary to create an "outward force". Momentum and the conservation laws are at the heart of the matter.
Objects, such as galaxies moving toward a singularity or other great concentrations of matter/ energy would be seen to accelerate, just as a falling stone accelerates toward the earth. In an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe the acceleration of Galaxies toward the poles of the "Hemispheres" creates the "Cosmological Constant", a seeming tug of "antigravity".
An Einsteinian Universe is not expanding in an absolute sense. From our frame of reference, it is expanding, but from the frame of reference of light, the universe is static or at best only slightly pulsating. "Dynamic" is a time related concept. When we discuss the universe as a whole, it is a good idea to divorce ourselves from any one frame of reference. When we do, we find, that over its entire history and each cycle, the universe is of uniform size. What seems to happen from any inside frame of reference cannot and does not affect the overall picture...finite, unbounded, dual and eternal.
"The radiation from stars and galaxies on the side facing the universe is subject to a different gravitational field, and therefore all of its reactive force is not nullified." In an EHU there is no "outside" of the universe- by definition.
Mr, Neese makes radiation an important part of his cosmology, and he comes very close to questioning the constant speed of light with respect to any source or observer. " Therefore the light which is emitted toward the galaxy, undergoes less change in momentum than does the light emitted in a direction away from the galaxy." The blue and red shifts of light in parts of rotating galaxies moving toward and away from us is insignificant compared to the Blue and Red shifts of galaxies related to their absolute distance from us. Blue and red shifted light both travel at C- as do all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Red-shifted light is not slowed down by one iota; it loses no momentum; the red shift is a Doppler effect resulting from the motion of a light emitting source. Light moves at the same speed whether a galaxy is receding at 9/10ths the speed of light or coming at us at 9/10ths the speed of light. This fact about light causes the counterintuitive effects we observe in an Einsteinian Cosmology.
"Due to the gravitational effect on radiation". Gravitational fields bend light, but they do not slow it. Even near a singularity, this principle holds. Until light reaches the event horizon, we simply see it increasingly red shifted, but traveling at the same speed. At the event horizon, light stops cold, and its photons rush towards and through the singularity and out into the other hemisphere.
Mr. Neese discusses the fact that the rotational characteristics of galaxies cannot be accounted for by the mass of the combined stars in them, but I honestly do not agree that stellar displacement can even begin to account for such a huge deficit in mass. I definitely do not feel that the methods we have for determining the absolute distance of Galaxies; intrinsic brightness, Red and Blue shifts, Cepheid Variable stars and supernovas are off by much. Recent improved observational data confirms the error on these measurements to be no more than 10%. To try to depreciate these proven and widely accepted methods of determining distance, while offering only stellar displacement as a substitute, is, I think unnecessarily speculative.
The dual or parallel universes concept doubles the mass of the galaxies instantly- and puts the mass where it has to be to account for galactic rotational characteristics. The mass of singularities at the hubs of galaxies and in multiple star systems within galaxies and the mass of singularity tied up at the poles of an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, are I think, a much better explanation for such significant mass deficits, and account for the characteristics of the galaxies within models which have been experimentally verified in many other particulars. The dual universe is the subject of a world wide- and possibly Earth shaking investigation- from Cambridge England to North Carolina; at UCLA, The Max Planck Institute and The Indian Institute of Technology.
The circulation of stars within galaxies is not a subject I would try to talk authoritatively about, but evidence seems to indicate that stars first form in filaments, the spiral arms of future galaxies which then develop hubs. At first, young galaxies, because of the unstable orbits of the stars within, have violent hubs with huge black holes and massive jets which for incompletely understood reasons squirt out at right angles for tens of thousands of light years. Stellar populations migrate inward, generally, not outward, and find their way to the hub eventually, which is an active region of star formation itself, though the life of such stars is brief on a cosmological time scale. Near the hub, tidal forces of millions of nearby stars complicate the dynamic picture, and eventually these tidal forces become so great, stellar existence becomes impossible. Stars near the centers of the hubs are torn apart and the gasses fed into massive black holes orbiting in tandem. The distortion of space-time can be so great that massive annihilation of matter and antimatter from both hemispheres can occur.
Everywhere, every fame of reference in the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is "the center".
In his second to last paragraph Mr. Neese paints a picture of a universe which has a fixed center, so in this sense at least, his cosmology is different from that of Einstein. Yet I like Mr. Neese's final paragraph very much. "The universe appears to be self-sustaining". This is a very Einsteinian concept, and I agree that it is- in fact an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is self sustaining by definition! The oscillation idea (an internally dynamic universe) is interesting; the idea that it expands and contracts SIMULTANEOUSLY implies a dual universe kind of idea, although I understand Mr. Neese's concept as a single sided universe, of which part is undergoing each aspect of its life cycle eternally.
"Mass is converted into energy; energy becomes mass, and makes its appearance as Hydrogen". In this statement, we can see the theoretical NEED for singularity, a concept not considered in the paper. Singularity recycles energy to matter...that, from the frame of reference of space time, is one of its major purposes. Without the "Cosmic Trash Compactor", this process, how energy is recycled to Hydrogen and Helium, becomes a matter of conjecture. Why speculate, when we have the models to show how this essential part of the eternal cycle takes place?
"The laws of the conservation of matter and energy hold for an infinite time. This cosmology indicates that we live in an infinite time universe." First Cause is a matter of frame of reference. We live in a world, and frame of reference where things seem to start and stop, and we observe cause and effect. From a universal frame of reference, first cause is seen to be meaningless. The universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. I close on this note of profound agreement with Mr. Neese.
Sincerely,
Sam Cox.. College of Micronesia February 4, 2000
