Response by Sam Cox to "A Personal Cosmos" by Albert Fido (United Kingdom)

Hello!

When asked for his assessment of the great advances he triggered in Physics, Sir Isaac Newton remarked that he felt he had found only a few pebbles on a beach, while the "great ocean of truth" was still before him. Sir Isaac Newton had a pretty strong ego, but on the issue of how much he had really advanced our understanding of the Cosmos, he ate "humble pie". History has proven his humility prophetic, and profoundly justified.

Einstein was not known for his ego, but he correctly regarded his problems in conceiving Special and General Relativity as far more complex than those encountered in Newton's approach.

We all live in our own frame of reference, and Einstein would be the first to agree with us that our frame of reference is real. If we are at the bottom of the sea and that 20 cm thick glass window breaks, we are history. If we are at 40,000 feet above the Earth and our plane, without our knowing the fact, loses cabin pressure, we are finished. Ask any prisoner whether being in jail is "real" or not! Ask any woman whether giving birth is "real"....I'm sure our readers get my point.

Scientifically, the most difficult problems come in the description of the cosmos- all frames of reference. As I recall, Mr. Fido mentions Einstein's famous formula two times in his paper, so I know he has respect for the great scientists work. Moreover, Mr. Fido has some frankly fascinating intuitive insights into the inner workings of an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, which I will discuss shortly. However, I disagree with some of Mr. Fido's ideas too.

In science, every concept we develop must be tested and re-tested experimentally to verify its truth. Words and ideas don't make truth- at least for us humans. Truth should make words and ideas. To be successful, and accepted, our ideas and models must be congruent with reality. I've studied Einstein's life carefully, and it is clear he conceptualized Special, and later General Relativity before he formulated the math! When he was 16 years old he speculated about running abreast of a beam of light! Like any good theoretician, he had many close friends whose specialty was math, and he kept up to date on the work they were doing. He added terms to the formulae of Newton, and used Mathematical formulae expressing the relationships he had previously conceptualized to construct a mathematical model of the reality he had conceived. Then he reworked the math, added his own personal intuition (the "Cosmological Constant") and "touch" and presto! When the formulae were tested, they explained a previously unexplained precession of 43 seconds of arc per century in the planet Mercury's orbit, as Newtonian mathematics had not. The rest is history.

The "Big Bang" is NOT dead- or even dying. That is a fact. In fact, most scientists feel almost certain that the whole universe experienced a "hot" big bang....not just a simple reversal of polarity, but an explosion of monumental proportions. The time coordinates for this are tricky, for reasons rooted in relativity itself, and especially in a 4-D universe, where there was no time at the beginning and in which we have not a clue as to where all this came from. The 7-D and up universe is profoundly counterintuitive, but at least it answers the questions of how the universe is self-sustaining and where it comes from. Whether the "Big Bang" was truly instantaneous or happened over "time" is a matter for investigation, but the evidence says it was "hot", which by the way is not incompatible with the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe model. The Bang in an EHU is so far removed in scale from the other hemisphere, it can be as hot as it needs to be!

I can understand Mr. Fido's feelings! Most scientists cling to the 4-D universe. The "Big Bang", in spite of its experimental veracity, leaves so many basic questions unanswered, it is hard for many people to believe highly respected scientists could give credence to such an idea! Eventually, scientists will be forced to pick and chose between the incompletely descriptive 4-D model or highly counterintuitive 7-D and up versions which answer the basic questions but open a metaphysical "can of worms".

In fairness to scientists; although they know Antimatter exists, and they know it was created in equal amounts with Matter at the big bang, and they have a lot of evidence from particle accelerators and other experiments too, they are topologically "locked out" of the Antiverse. The dual universe makes sense, it answers profound questions, the math is perfect, but would someone please find a way for us to "take a peek" and experimentally verify its existence, they ask! Lets understand something; If we "were not from Missouri", we wouldn't be scientists!

Personally, although we have abundant indirect and inferential evidence for the Antiverse right now, I think proof positive experimental verification of the dual or parallel universe concept is coming within several years, and could come at any time.

Mr. Fido does take time to define his terms and that is commendable. I don't agree with some of his conclusions, but at least he makes his position clear!

"The Big Bang" theory claims that the universe is finite". This is true. It is also true that Dr. Einstein's universe is finite. Moreover, since the speed of light is finite and can be accurately measured, and because the proportions of matter and energy are known, we can calculate the finite mass of the Einsteinian Universe. I don't consider the concept of a finite universe to be a false assumption. Einstein certainly didn't! The problems Mr. Fido discusses here are dimensional and topological in nature, as already discussed. The "Big Bang" looks bad in 4-D. At 7-D and higher it comes out smelling like a rose.

"Infinity at least gives us room in which to achieve a greater understanding. So as a starting point, let us assume the Cosmos is infinite in size, time and (creativity?). What we call the universe probably is finite". This idea of combining finite and infinite universes is common. I evaluated another paper in which a fine Physics professor proceeded conceptually in the same way as Mr. Fido, though I suspect the motives of the physics professor were entropy related, and connected with his belief in a strong Anthropic Principle.

My problem is that infinity is mysterious. I'm not infinite. The universe I live in is not infinite. Since our universe starts and ends with what we know and understand, how can it be infinite? There is not a shred of experimental evidence that the universe is infinite, or that there is an infinite group of finite universes. Even Einstein implied that his General Relativity mathematical model was flawed in admitting infinite values. By definition, there can be nothing outside of a finite, unbounded and eternal Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe. Relativity is in trouble if the universe is infinite. To me, the idea of infinity is pretty much incomprehensible. I think infinity is TOO much room "to achieve a greater understanding". Eternity is more comprehend able, but even that is difficult. How can it be that the universe itself has no beginning or end?

The next idea discussed by Mr. Fido is the equivalence of matter and energy, and this shows he has great intuitive insight, for the equivalence of matter and energy is the cornerstone of the universe. General Relativity fails to even mention matter, for matter is energy! On page 3 Mr. Fido says: "I have shown that, by accepting that the energy which forms all masses, has structure"...This is very profound. I was evaluating another paper, omitted a discussion of this important principle of Einsteinian mathematics, and had to send a revised version of my evaluation to the editor!

What we view as "light" does have structure. c or the speed of light enters into this structure, and the structure of the various forms of compressed energy we refer to as "matter" in an intimate and topological manner. Without trying to sound too mysterious, I would like to remind our readers that light imposes order on matter in organic evolution. Our very being is expressed as patterns of electromagnetic energy. Photons on earth are linked to photons everywhere in the universe, like the parts of a rack and pinion steering assembly on a high performance car. Change polarity on a particle? Its twin antiparticle will change too.

With that in mind, I still strongly disagree with the editors conclusion that energy is an aether, just because Electromagnetic energy "fills" space. (Page 3) Lets not forget the reason for the aether! It was something for electromagnetic energy to flow through so the velocity of light and other objects in space could be measured in a classical, Newtonian, manner

From the frame of reference of light, space is "full"- but not from ours! 150 atoms per cubic meter and less (I think that estimate for intergalactic space is very liberal!), a few cosmic rays, and some not quite mass less photons is hardly an "atmosphere"! The "background radiation" is not "so called". It is THERE. It has been carefully measured, and it is powerful, indisputable evidence that the "Big Bang" did occur...and in an eternal Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, STILL EXISTS

At some coordinates of the universe. There are factors which prevent our observing the "Big Bang" in the here and now, but theoretically, and observationally, we know it is there.

The universe is filled with energy in its various forms, separated by dimensions we call space and scale, but what of energy "potential"? This almost sounds like the 4-D Big Bang, where everything comes from nothing, potential, or "quantum fluctuations". I feel most mathematicians and Physicists would agree with me that whole universes are highly unlikely to arise from nothing, or next to nothing, as the strong Anthropic Principle suggests. If quantum fluctuations can become full scale universes, why is the Earth not being devoured by infant universes constantly? Quantum fluctuations are everywhere, but they function as the "mat" on the floor of scale between hemispheres of the Einsteinain Hyperspherical Universe. They pose no threat to us. The same law which applies at our scale applies there- what goes in comes out. If the mass of a universe goes in, the mass of a universe comes out. If the energy equivalent of a particle goes in, a particle comes out. Energy, like our universe is eternal. The sum total of all the matter and energy in the universe is a constant. Energy and matter can be exchanged in the correct proportion, but are not destroyed.

When the author speaks of an aether of any kind, he is being non-Einsteinian, but I can assure him I read many papers which still proclaim some kind of aether, usually but not always to avoid the Einsteinain premise that the speed of light is independent of the source and the observer- a constant. In this case, I sense the author is speaking about a kind of "steady state" creation of matter from energy "storms" localized in the universe and is not taking issue with the speed of light assertions of Einstein. However, I wish to advise him there are dynamic problems- second law dynamic problems- with the concept.

Energy imposes order on matter in organic evolution, for example, but the mass of all the plants and animals created on earth is an infinitesimal fraction of the total mass of the sun converted to energy over the last 4.6 billion years at 2,000 tons per second! I really have a hard time with free energy creating galaxies!...on this side of the universe.

Yet isn't it amazing? Mr. Fido has caught a frame of reference from the 7-D Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe! In the antiverse, on the entropy, other side of the universe, free energy in the universe would indeed be re-created back into matter within stars! At the completion of the process, all that would be necessary would be to attain singularity, and see the universe reborn in its eternal cycle. In the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe there is a side of the universe where a free energy "atmosphere" generates "storms" which form atoms and galaxies. It just doesn't happen in this "hemisphere" of the EHU, the one we are living in right now! I am mystified and fascinated at how people pick up these frames of reference from the 7-D and up Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.

If some readers think it a bit "Kooky" that Humpy Dumpty could come together again and leap, intact, back into my hand in entropy reversal, I would like to gently remind them that "Thermodynamic Reversibility" relates to and is an essential part of the eternal and dual nature, and strict conservation of order in a 7-D universe.

On the other side of the Hypersphere, not only is time observed to pass in a different direction, we will really understand that gravity is a "fictitious force"! It will still pull down, but the world lines of objects will defy it constantly. In fact, we will get downright used to everything coming to us, and working out "OK". There is a penalty, however for this...the quality of our consciousness changes as we grow younger, and biological complexity decreases, slowly at first, and then very rapidly. Have you ever wondered how Luke Skywalker drew that light saber out of the snow and into his hand while he was hanging upside down in the predators cave? The science consultants for "Star Wars" were pretty well informed about General Relativity!

When the author speaks of an infinite cosmos, he is being non-Einsteinian too. Its interesting speculation to talk of infinity. Speculation has a useful role in the scientific process, but experimental verification of unknown universes is what we seek. The successful models we are using now describe a vast, but definitely finite, cosmos.

The authors description of gravity is non-Einsteinian. It is clear that in his training, he learned that gravity was a "force" according to the classical tradition. In an Einsteinian Universe, gravity is not a force. So far as scientists can tell, a hypothetical aether has nothing to do with "compressing" anything toward the earth.

Again, however, Mr. Fido has picked up a frame of reference in the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe! Compressed energy (photons) in the form of microscopic singularity at the smallest scales of space may be linked to gravity! Massive objects would cause a "gathering" of microscopic singularity in the vicinity of massive objects, resulting in a change in the characteristics of space which we would perceive as gravity. In the vicinity of a black hole, or near the "Big Bang/Black Hole (crunch)", microscopic singularity would displace space and scale and initiate polarity reversal. In this scenario, the momentum of the ages of General Relativity (any object once set in motion, will continue in motion unless acted upon..etc.) directs and structures the process.

"Time is our perception of change". This is close to my favorite definition of time- for any single frame of reference below the speed of light in the EHU, which is; "Time is the perception and measurement of motion and change". In the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, time is a place, coordinates which locate everything from beginning to end... almost frightening determinism.

It is interesting that Mr. Fido ties his discussion of Black Holes to Atoms! Most people, including Stephen Hawking in the illustration from "A Brief History of Time", Mr. Fido mentions, use astronomical illustrations of black holes, the collapse of a star for example. The official name for the formation of a black hole is "gravitational collapse", and it can occur at microscopic scales. In fact, singularity may be as intimately linked to the existence of atoms as Mr. Fido implies. At most locations in the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, microscopic singularity gives structure and assists in the organization of atoms over geological time. Near the poles of the hypersphere, (or black holes of any kind) microscopic singularity gathers, and "floods" the "keel" of our reality. Eventually the atoms collapse, particles reverse polarity and a new cycle begins

I'm not sure about Mr. Fido's 103 energy levels in atoms...maybe this is the number of elements?

No energy is "surplus"...all is conserved in a 7-D and up Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe. Throughout his paper, I have not been quite sure about Mr. Fido's concept of the nature of light, how it travels, light as particle and wave etc. I can be sure, and Mr. Fido makes it very clear, that light in particular and energy in general play a fundamental role in his (and Einsteins) cosmology.

I'm interested in Mr. Fido's discussion of the nature of "Bonding Particles"...and the four forces which scientists are presently in the process of trying to unify. Particle spin is important, but the general description of these things Mr. Fido gives is not congruent with any cosmology of which I am presently aware. The increase in complexity described near the end of Mr. Fido's paper, again sounds like an Antiversal phenomenon in the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.

Statement number 1: I strongly agree. "The energy of which atoms consists, itself has structure" (Paraphrase)

Statement number 2. I agree: "There is no absolute vacuum anywhere in the Cosmos" (as long as we mean universe, as Mr. Fido defines his terms).

Statement number 3. I disagree. I don't feel the use of the term aether here is justified.

Statement number 4. I disagree. I know of no solid experimental evidence that the universe or cosmos is infinite. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with speculation- so long as we understand it is speculation.

Statement number 5. Maybe ...gravity may be a phenomenon which results from a gathering of microscopic singularity (compressed photons) which distorts space/time.

Statement number 6. Incomplete concept ...some particles have spin and others don't. The use of the word "every" is questionable.

I feel Mr. Fido has some interesting ideas, and a good intuitive sense. He obviously has had a long-standing interest in Cosmology.

Sincerely, Sam Cox; College of Micronesia; March 13, 2000