Discussion Board

Topic: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: Richard Dasheiff
Location: Dallas, TX
Date: 02/08/2009

I was trying to decide whether to post this to the Physics (Astrophysics section) of http://arxiv.org/ or this blog (my double bachelor's was in Physics and Astronomy). Let me remind Greg who I am:

Tue, 5 Aug 2003
Dear Dr. Dasheiff,
It's been twelve years now! But in tearing out our kitchen recently,
my wife found a letter you had send to me through Warner books, unopened-and never read.

Next, I recently read City at the End of Time and appreciate why you wrote 500 pages, after all, once you finally got your mind around the idea and could generate prose describing such an alien space-time environment, you'd want to explore every aspect of it. Another excellent novel, and kudos for not making it 2 books.

And last, I'd like to share an idea. I was going to draw a picture (since this is geometry) but my 3-D drawing skills are poor and thought I'd try my prose. We need to consider two geometries (1) space; (2) gravity. In the beginning the Universe was a 1-D point and quickly became an expanding sphere of energy and then energy+matter. I'm going to skip any distinctions of baryonic vs dark. Gravity was presumably only attractive. After a good 10E+7 years we had a large energy/matter sphere and an Einsteinian rubber mat representing gravity. The gravity geometry was mostly flat (empty space) but was developing deep negatively contoured sink holes where neutron stars and black holes were seemingly dropping out of our Universe. Everything is still inflationary, but the idea that insufficient matter (dark and baryonic) would not pull the Universe back to a singularity was suggesting the energy/matter (space-time) Universe would continue to expand forever (although at a low enough energy density time loses meaning and forever is no longer a valid concept). The gravity geometry now plays a major role, and whether gravity is now itself repulsive at long scales, or it is another force is not important. The gravity landscape is filling with black holes which drop "worm holes" through space. These worm holes drop so deeply that they can re-connect on the opposite side of our spherical space geometry Universe. These deepening worm holes appear differently in the gravity rubber mat geometry. They curve back and re-connect at different places on the rubber mat, and slowly "pull" the mat from being flat to convex and finally into a ball. This makes the gravity geometry a sphere, riddled with worm holes. The positive curvature of the sphere would make the space Universe expand while the negative holes would attract everything at the event horizons around the black holes down to the center of the gravity geometry sphere. The balance of these forces (can we say Omega) would cause the gravity sphere to contract and eventually shrink to a 1-D point. All energy and matter at that time would also have to shrink to a point, and we get to close the loop (regenerate). The Universe rebounds and we start all over again.

Re: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: Greg Bear
Date: 02/09/2009

This is a version of one of my favorite cosmologies, but so far, it seems that spacetime is flat, not spherical. Of course, our conceptions change every thirty or forty years or so--maybe a cyclical cosmos idea is itself cyclical!

Re: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: patrick
Location:
Date: 02/14/2009

There seem to be lots of ideas on this stuff...however, I have the feeling that it isn't relevant. I think there is a multiverse, worm holes, black holes, etc being portals between them; hence whether a particular universe eventually collapses, there's a constant exchange of energy between them.

Re: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: Eric Andresen
Location: Olney, Maryland
Date: 02/14/2009

I was wondering if you knew Mr. Bear of any sites that actively posts of differing cosmologies that should be taken seriously...maybe..lol. Also, should I write down my own ideas and possibly have them notarized.
Some of my conjectures, or truths...they were coming out in a rush...involve the application of the idea of superconductivity in explaining our misunderstanding of quantum phenomena. Also, the idea that there are NO forces, but only Graviton Aspects...think about it. I believe that Hoorft once commented that these univesal forces we see sure don't seem to be actually forces...I wish I could remember where he stated this.
Also, I came into ascribing this Universe as three different spaces: Positive, Negative, and Null. It is the Null Space of which nothing enters or leaves, but it contains what we may term the Time particle. Time actually "hides" this Universe from any others. We may see the void of what appears as space as separate from ordinary matter, but matter is space...hard to explain. One of the weird aspects in my conjectures is that the Universe is expansive, but cyclic with nodes.
To reiterate, I believe in what I imagine, conjecture, read from the Muses, or whatever. Should I have it totally assigned to ME as in notarization?

Re: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: Greg Bear
Date: 02/24/2009

Which makes standard thermodynamic views of closed systems irrelevant, no?

Re: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: Greg Bear
Date: 02/24/2009

Science is about open discourse. Putting your ideas on the web and dating them is effective in establishing some sort of priority. There are archives kept of such postings. Notarizing a document page by page is also possible.

Re: A geometric explanation of a regenerative Universe

From: patrick
Location:
Date: 06/07/2009

"Which makes standard thermodynamic views of closed systems irrelevant, no?"

Whether you're answering me or Dashieff: essentially, or ultimately, yes. Which I think isn't a liked idea in the field. However, it would seem to reinforce conservation of energy in a remarkable way that might allow for some form of GUT, but again it has to be considered first.

Respond to this discussion

May we post your correspondence on this site?
Yes
No
IMPORTANT: For form verification, type the following number in the box below: 75




See Also...

Archives: [Oct-Dec 2004] [Jan-June 2005] [July-Dec 2005] [Jan-June 2006] [July 2006] [Aug-Dec 2006] [2007] [2008] [2009] [2010] [2011] [2012] [2013] [2014] [Current] [Search Blog Archives]