Essay Abstract

One wrong assumption may be our belief that we live in a unique spacetime continuum. The Multispace Model advances the hypothesis that the universe is a multispace world, filled with countless independent and overlapping spaces. The model is based on the author's discovery of a 3D Space-Time Diagram (3DSD) of special relativity, which he introduces to the reader following a series of hypothetical hints left by Minkowski. The author wouldn't tell if the famous mathematician really left these hints for posterity. It's up to you to decide. The Multispace Model introduces the reader to several hypotheses. Reference frames of special relativity are independent physical spaces, hypothesis that confirms Minkowski's 1908 declaration that the world is composed of an infinite number of spaces. The model also leads us believe that space and time may not be the most basic constituents of reality. Some spaces, like those holding fundamental particles, are relativistically orthogonal to the space of the universe and therefore invisible to us. This prediction explains quantum spaces as real frameworks embedded in the universe, but physically separated from it. Spaces holding nested spaces (think of an atom) are visible, while gravity appears to be a force not of attraction but of repulsion, a cosmic pressure.

Author Bio

Eugeniu Alexandrescu is founder and president of Convergétics Research Center he started in 2002. The Center is an interdisciplinary research company that aims to study various aspects of the surrounding world and to synthesize them into a coherent and convergent model of reality.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Eugeniu,

The problems in your essay about quantum spaces really important for the physics. Please see my essay and Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter in which no problem with different types of spaces. First of all particles can not be treated as points (see also Scale dimension ). The singularities and black holes in Universe are absent. There is possible substantional models of proton, neutron, electron, other particles, gravitational model of strong interaction, model of quark quasiparticles, strong gravitation and so on. With this in mind we find that mathematical spaces of Standard Model are consequence only of symmetry of nuclear interaction and substance structure of numerous short-life particles. In my opinion the reality may be explained without invisible spaces.

In your Fig 2 the length OX = OX`` , time t = t`` ? And projections OX` < OX`` and t`< t`` according to Lorentz transformations. As I see the plane P` must be rotated both around the axes OX and axes t. You think it is possible instead of it to use only one rotation around the axes u. But such rotation do not change amplitudes of projections OX` and t`, so additional rotation around second axes is necessary. For example such axes may be perpendicular to plane P` and axes u. I hope you can evaluate my essay too.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your opinion on this essay.

Basically, I agree with you to disregard the Big Bang model, but not the existence of singularities and black holes that you consider "as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out." I will post my comments on the forum page of your essay.

In Endnote 6 you find an explanation of Fig 2, but because of the limited space I had to cut several details. Please let me know if we want to get the whole text.

For your second question, I didn't explore other possibilities since in Minkowski's diagram the x' and t' axes approach the light path. (In special relativity, the bisector of the xOt-angle is called the "light path," because when v=c the two axes x' and t' are superimposed.)

My scope is to demonstrate that Minkowski's original diagram is just a partial view of the 3DSD, the later showing the "whole picture.'' This means that trying to rotate plane P' around other axes would have obscured my point.

Regards,

Eugeniu

    Dear Eugeniu,

    Lorentz transformations from the mathematical point of view are transformations of coordinates and time of frame 1 to coordinates and time of frame 2, which are rotation of coordinate systems. For x and t it is rotation of plain in space. But axis u is not really perpendicular to the plane xOt. So we can determine orientation of plane P` with the help of two rotation. I supposed that in Figure 2 axis u is perpendicular to the plane xOt, in this case there is second rotation is necessary. In any case orientation of axis u depends only on coefficients of transformations, which depend themselves on speed and Lorentz factor.

    Sergey Fedosin Essay

    Dear Sergey,

    In fact, axis u is really perpendicular on observer's plane P. I agree that this confusion is caused by my drawing, and I think the best way would be to see the detailed explanation of the 3D Space-Time Diagram.

    Note that at the top of the Web page you should see a slide show with plane P' rotated in four successive positions. You can pause or stop the slide show as you wish. If you don't see it, either Java is not running and you need to enable it, or AdBlock or a similar program blocks Java and you have to disable them on this page.

    Regards,

    Eugeniu

    Dear Eugeniu,

    For travelling of energy and matter in the Universe black holes are not needed. You can see some arguments about impossibility of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

    About the expanding of the Earth see the news New Study Shows Earth Is Staying The Same Size. My full answer to your other questions is at my discussion page of essay.

    The slide show 3D Space-Time Diagram is working good enough. But the length of time vector t` must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light. So there is necessary second rotation of the plane P`.

    Sergey Fedosin Essay

    Dear Sergey,

    I followed your link to redOrbit:

    > "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

    Yeah... Right! Remember Climategate? These NASA scientists must be friends or they just learned from the CRU people. Since they didn't know how to explain that the Earth temperature started to decrease, CRU scientists "fixed" the data to still show warming. Smart guys, isn't it? Well... until the Climategate. Same thing now with this NASA study. If Wu and his team admit Earth's expansion, they would need to explain it. But they have no idea. And nobody does inside the concept of a unique space. It is only my black & white holes theory that provides a hypothesis. But this is not proved yet either. So they better say Earth isn't growing.

    But Wu was smart, because he added at the end "... within current measurement uncertainties," which would exonerate him in case somebody finds out that Earth is still expanding.

    > "... the length of time vector t' must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light."

    In fact, t'=0 means that seen from the observer in P it dilates to become infinite, or if you want eternal. And a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable, i.e. last forever. Length contraction and time dilation are well known consequences of the Lorentz transformations.

    Dear Eugeniu,

    I hope you agree that the matter at the Earth is made of nucleons mostly. The same is true for substance of neutron star. We do not say in the case about quantum fields as a source of the substance. Instead of it we explain big object with the help of small particles. And the same is supposed for any real particles including nuons or praons. All the particles are made again of particles which are much more small.

    You say about a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable. In my mind the postulate about constancy of speed of light and the Lorentz transformation are result of convention. In reality the absolute speed of light in one-way experiment may be another. See for example: Metric theory of relativity.

    So it is hard to deduce right ideas about matter on the base of conventional Lorentz kinematics.

    Sergey Fedosin Essay

    6 days later

    Eugeniu,

    I was increasingly aghast as I read your attack on the heart of established physics. But what really made me shake my head was towards the end when you left reality behind and wrote that these different spaces are 'invisible' and;

    "Different from visible spaces, which have a physical existence within the space of the universe, orthogonal spaces, while physically embedded in the universe, are at the same time external to it."

    So just when the ruling paradigm was entirely prostrate and at your mercy you finished it off with the best weapon you had at your disposal, an imaginary orthogonal pillow!!

    So back to imaginary space-time and spooky wonderland physics we go then. But I tease you Eugeniu, I really was aghast, but at how brilliant your conception and analysis was ('brilliant' measured in the FQXi metric of how close to my own). But I could forgive you the "external physical embedded internal orthoginal" explanation when I read your last paragraph, and reality existing way beyond the sky. Now that is precisely where I'd like to show you it is, and 'detectable', and more real than you could dream of as the weapon to finish the job.

    I've found there are indeed; "two independent physical spaces for relative motion to occur, and not, as Einstein thought, merely two abstract mathematical coordinate systems." The big next step is that these REAL spaces (frames) are "mutually exclusive". Nested at all scales, only existing around matter ('nothing' cannot move) so reference frames are independent REAL physical spaces in their own right, with boundaries where a well known (but not yet well interpreted) physical mechanism implements the effects of transformation.

    Too good to be true? Of course it is. Far too good. Completely unbelievable. But true it in none the less. You may note that Fig 3 of my essay bears a passing resemblance to the inclining plane of your nicely interpolated Minkowski one. Here it makes a simpler point, that 'light vectors' is the wrong concept, and 'paths' are not normal to causal wavefronts. But do read the essay (and my last few here) before I overload you with more. Vesselin also promised to read it.

    best wishes

    Peter

    Peter,

    Thanks for your comments. I have downloaded your essay and put it on the list that I am going to read.

    > "You may note that Fig 3 of my essay bears a passing resemblance to the inclining plane of your nicely interpolated Minkowski one."

    Yes, I agree there is a resemblance, but it's only superficial. The two explanations of the diagrams are completely unrelated, which makes all the difference...

    Best regards and wishes.

    Good luck in the contest.

      Eugeniu

      Thanks. The rotating plane model initially emerged from varying incident angles of refraction and the KRR I discuss briefly in the essay. There I use it as the proof that standard vectors analysis is nonsense and a concept of optical axis is required to conserve causality. i.e. Observed 'Light paths' are not normal to causal planes or Schrodinger sphere surfaces. Even the importance of that point seems to have been lost on most. The short format limits the scope, and I think I already pushed over the limit. You'll note I also refer to Einstein specifying 'planes' not the non-solid 'wires' of current Cartesian interpretation.

      When you also read the text you'll find that combined with the other Fig's I also derive the effects of space-time from a quantum mechanism and kinetic based asymmetry, so the two are not quite as 'completely unrelated' as you suggest, and I think highly complementary. Indeed I'd like to cite your work in another paper in final draft, and possibly your figs as they're better than mine. Please comment. I found dead links or little detail at your site. Have you any papers? I also have another variation on the Minkowski diagram resolving some astronomical anomalies if you're interested.

      I certainly think a good score is warranted for your excellent and relevant essay, and hope you agree the same of mine. Do also please review and comment on the formulae if you can as they've been questioned.

      Many thanks.

      Peter

      15 days later

      Dear Eugeniu,

      You present some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

      1. I agree that frames of reference should not be equated with coordinate systems.

      2. Amanda Gefter has written an interesting essay here called "Cosmic Solipsism." This view is somewhat similar to your statement that different frames of reference are independent spaces, since each observer has his/her own frame of reference in relativity. You might be interested in reading it.

      3. Another hint of "multispaces" in standard physics is Feynman's sum-over-histories version of quantum theory. This hint arises in the following way: in his 1948 paper Feynman discussed summing over particle trajectories in Euclidean spacetime and thereby recovered "standard" quantum theory, with its Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, Schrodinger equation, etc. Feynman was able to take all the trajectories to be in the same space because he was working with a background-dependent model, meaning that the ambient Euclidean space was assumed to be unaffected by the particle moving in it.

      Now, if general relativity has taught us anything, it is that "spacetime" and "matter-energy" interact, so different particle trajectories mean different spacetimes. Hence, in a background-independent treatment, Feynman's sum over histories should become a sum over independent spaces, with a different space corresponding to each particle trajectory. His original version should be viewed as a limiting case in which the effect of the particle on the spacetime is very small.

      However, it would really be more correct to retain the independent spaces even in the limit... so some form of multispace model seems absolutely necessary for quantum theory!

      I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

      Ben Dribus

      Dear Ben,

      Thank you for the hints, especially for the one about Amanda Gefter. I let her know about that.

      I will go right now to rate your essay, which I appreciated, but didn't left any comment thinking that with 200 post you already had a lot to answer. But since every vote can make a winner, it's not the same thing for the rating, so I'll do it.

      So I hope you keep the first place and win the contest, 'cause you deserve it!

      Good luck.

      Gene Alexandrescu

      If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

      Sergey Fedosin

      By looking at your average rating, I just don't really understand why you put all this time to write me this post, when it is quite obvious that none of us would be among the first 35 anyway...

      But I noticed that our ratings are not instantly updated to change the average rating of the contestant, so probably you got several ratings between the updates. Don't forget that we all give our ratings these days...