Alternative Models of Cosmology

I previously wrote -'It actually makes more sense to me to think small motion to become aligned no photon,just called spin down relatively large motion to become aligned photon release,just called spin up.'

As the decay to spin up has a half life the spin down, no photon detected, group should include both undetectably small motion to alignment and not yet persuaded to align. Perhaps not yet persuaded are the ones caught between the forces to tilt up to gain alignment and tilt down to gain alignment. This gives a rater different picture of what spin up and spin down might actually represent.

OUR UNIVERSE AS A COSMIC FISH TANK

The Big Bang origin-of-our-Universe event was not the be-all-and-end-all of things. The Big Bang event was but a minor event in the larger cosmic scheme of things. If the elementary particles that comprise your mind and body could talk, what a tale of eternity they would tell!

THE SETTINGS

Setting Number One - Time is infinite in scope. 'Once upon a time'; 'in the beginning', are two standard openings to the stage setting where ultimately, our Universe, plays its part. Alas, although there was an 'in the beginning' to our Universe, ultimately, IMHO there was no such thing as an ultimate 'in the beginning' in the broader cosmic context. In the broadest of broadest viewpoints, time stretches infinitely from cosmic horizon to cosmic horizon. Unlike all we know of regarding beginnings or creations, from our Universe, to our Solar System; to Earth; to terrestrial life, down through the ages to us, there is no ultimate beginning; there is no ultimate ending to the broader cosmic setting we find ourselves in. 'Once upon a time', should really read, 'once upon an eternity'.

Setting Number Two - Space is infinite in scope. In the broadest or broadest viewpoints, there's no such thing as an edge or a border or a boundary. Space stretches infinitely from horizon to horizon. Again, that's not the case when just considering our Universe, our Solar System, our home planet. But, this infinite space is again part of the overall stage where our Universe acts out a role - along with probably lots of other universe actors.

Let's call this larger context an infinite cosmic fish tank, and our Universe a fish.

Setting Number Three - There is no shape to the infinite cosmos. Why propose an infinite in space and infinite in time fish tank cosmos or cosmic setting in which to plunk our Universe - where our Universe is one of the fish? Because it does away with those awkward questions of what came before; what comes after; what lies at the farthest reaches? There is no before in the fish tank. There is no after either. There is no farthest away, only something even farther away, ad-nauseam. It also does away with the need to define an overall shape to our fish tank cosmos. An infinite volume has no shape!

That said, it must be repeated and made clear that our Universe (a fish in the infinite tank) did have a beginning, and therefore one can legitimately ask what came before. Our Universe does have a finite size and therefore a shape - probably spherical. What defines the (ever expanding) size and shape of our Universe is how far out light (the speediest thing we know of) has been able to travel since our Universe's creation, some 13.7 billion years ago. That's the boundary to our Universe. Again, our Universe is probably a sphere, with a radius of 13.7 billion light years (a light year being the distance light travels in one year - which, at 300,000 km per second, is a long way). Or, a diameter of 27.4 billion light years.

Setting Number Four - The laws, relationships, and principles of physics (and ultimately chemistry, etc.) are universal throughout the fish tank cosmos. All the fish may not be of the same species and even those that are of the same species may have differing ages, sizes, sexes, etc. but they are ultimately all fish, subject to the universals that govern all things fish; the cosmic 'water' is uniform throughout.

Setting Number Five - Those fishy laws suggest that fish universes, each and every one (assuming more than just our Universe fish is in the infinite tank) are unstable - which real fish are - unstable that is. The same fish on two separate days is not the same fish, any more than you are the same you from one day to the next. You grow, you age, your cells and their components get replaced, etc. Translating to real universes, universes are unstable in that they must evolve; either expand, or contract. If there is one thing they can not be is static and unchanging. So, our infinite cosmic fish tank is a dynamic one. Fish come and go, but the tank is forever.

BEFORE THE BIG BANG: THE BIG CRUNCH

Once upon a time there was this universe, but not our Universe. This universe existed way before our Universe existed. For some reason(s) this universe had sufficient matter/mass and thus gravity to slow down its expansion rate, halt same, and reverse the flow. Slowly, but ever so surely, this universe contracted, grew ever hotter and denser, until, like thousands of cars converging at an ever higher rate of speed, came together at an intersection. You have, in effect, the Big Crunch!

What happens when all the stuff that comprises a universe comes together? Well, what happens when you concentrate a lot of stuff into a small space? You get a Black Hole. There are probably going to be already in existence a lot of Black Holes in this collapsing universe, if our Universe is any guide. So, existing Black Holes will have a feeding frenzy as matter around them gets confined into a smaller and smaller space; Black Holes themselves can merge creating a bigger Black Hole, until finally, all mass will be inside a super Black Hole, the product of smaller Black Holes gobbling up matter and ultimately combining until a super Black Hole is all that remains of that universe. But wait, there's more!

Think of the mass of an entire universe, all coming together at a single point in space and in time, at velocities that make Formula One racetrack driving look like a snail ploughing through molasses on a frozen winter's night! This is going to be the Mother of the Mother of the Mother of all collisions. No Hollywood special effects team could want for more! The upshot is going to be, just prior to the finale, the existence, as noted above, of the Mother of all Black Holes. There's going to be one hell of a massive distortion of space and time, or, space-time. The sheer momentum of such a collision, a Big Crunch, will turn space, or space-time, inside out. All that momentum can't just come to a screeching halt in a nanosecond. What's the result of a super collapsing Black Hole? A super massive explosion - a White Hole - a Big Bang.

BETWEEN THE BIG CRUNCH AND THE BIG BANG

Once upon a time there was this brief, but extremely intense transition between another universe's Big Crunch and our 'in the beginning' Big Bang event. I've already suggested that pure momentum of this runaway freight train will be, as an analogy, a sock turning inside out. That 'inside out' event will be a pretty quick-smart happening. What happens in that brief interval of time has to do with several parameters. One is of course time - how quick - well, quick - probably several seconds to minutes. The other is space - how small - well small. But is small classically small or quantum small? Classically small refers to the minimum size of the Big Crunch vs. the original size of that universe. Classically small could still be a 'point' many light seconds/minutes/hours in diameter. Quantum small means a 'point' that is within the realm of the quantum - say atomic sized, probably way less. Logic: can you squeeze the contents of an entire universe down to the size of an atom, or elementary particle? Or, perhaps it is more logical to suggest that the ultimate squeeze is somewhat larger. Now 'larger' may still be tiny relative to the universe's original size, but still one hell of a lot bigger than what's implied by the word 'quantum'. Yet, cosmologists would have one believe that our Universe started out as 'quantum small', not 'classically small'; that quantum small somehow ruled the roost when our Universe went the way of the Big Bang event - the origin of our Universe. To me, that's too big an ask to ask.

Any standard cosmology text will tell you about the conditions that existed within nanoseconds of the Big Bang event when the Universe was less than the size of your common cold bacterium. It was very, very super hot. It was very, very super dense. That's what the equations say (no cosmologist was around at the time to actually observe and measure), but equations are abstractions and Mother Nature doesn't deal with abstractions. Now both hot and dense are two logical Big Bang environmental parameters just nanoseconds past that event - but what of volume?

One can of course take any contracting object and extrapolate down to where it shrinks to a point of zero dimensions and thus have an infinite density (which therefore would be a Black Hole). But, does that reflect reality? IMHO: not on your Nellie. There must be (well, should be) some ultimate state of matter that when compressed, can't be compressed any further. It would take an infinite amount of gravitational force to do it and the Universe, any universe, doesn't possess infinite gravity.

What's the minimum size our Universe (or any universe in general) could be squeezed down to? If you asked that question to any reasonably educated adult, even a kid, while you'd get a range of answers, gut feeling tells me that - unless they were well versed in cosmology - that that volume wouldn't be within the range that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. Now, it is dangerous to apply common sense when it comes to sussing out nature's hidden secrets, but I'm now going to throw caution to the wind and applying this common sense dictum - The Universe, any universe, was never, repeat never ever the size that we would describe as microscopic!

Okay, so here we have this universe contracting down, getting hotter and hotter; denser and denser, and smaller and smaller as it slides into the Mother of all Black Holes, and immediately, within nanoseconds (or close to nanoseconds as the actual size allows - maybe seconds, maybe minutes) spew its guts out via a White Hole. Those guts form the contents of our Big Bang Universe. That midpoint - what was the minimum size of that transitional post Black Hole / pre White Hole event? All I'm prepared to say is that it was visible to the naked eye - assuming naked eyes were around 13.7 billion years ago! It was certainly not microscopic!

However, the really real important bit here is that our Big Bang, the product of a previous Big Crunch, happened in pre-existing time and space. The Big Bang did not, repeat, did not, create time and space. The question, 'what happened before the Big Bang?' has now a perfectly logical answer. The Big Crunch happened before the Big Bang.

OUR BIG BANG ALPHA

Once upon a time there was this Big Bang origin of our Universe. Any Big Bang worthy of its salt results in an expanding Universe. What's the evidence for the Big Bang, that our Universe is expanding (exploding?) from a point back in time (and therefore by running the film backwards contracting back to that point in time). Well, there are four lines. The first is theoretical. All universes are unstable (as noted above) and must either expand or contract. The second is observational - the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). An explosion - something hot - expands and cools off. The CMBR is the Big Bang's heat that has now cooled after 13.7 billion years of expansion. The third is also observational - distant objects in space exhibit a red-shift - they look slightly redder than they actually are because they are moving away from us. The farther away, the faster they are moving, the redder they are. If they were moving towards us, they'd appear slightly bluer. The relationship between distance from us and velocity is what you'd expect from something that went 'bang'. Lastly, also observational, is the distribution of objects out there. If there were no 'bang', then the distribution of objects (galaxies and clusters of galaxies) in space would be more evenly distributed than what's observed.

Ah, but where are the coordinates - that place in space - we can point our telescopes towards and literally see the remains of that Big Bang explosion? I mean we see the after affects of stellar (supernovae) explosions like the Crab Nebula which occurred in 1054 AD. Well, there's a vast time difference between 1054 AD and 13.7 billion years ago! By analogy, say you have a fireplace, and on a cold winters night you fire up same, and thus warm up you home to a comfortable level. But after a while, the fire burns out. If you leave the house, but return after a few hours, you will note that your fireplace is still a tad warmer than the rest of the house. That's like the 1054 AD event. But, now say you go on vacation and don't return for say a month after-the-fact. When you do, will your fireplace be any warmer than the rest of your home? No! Well, that's equivalent to the 13.7 billion years. We can't place those Big Bang coordinates because they have cooled to such an extent as to be the same temperature as the rest of the house, or Universe in this case. The place, those coordinates, of the Big Bang event no longer has any distinguishing features our telescopes can pick up on.

NOW

Once upon a time, a time we collectively call 'today' or 'now' or 'the present' is all we have to measure what came before and what will come after. What we currently believe is not what was believed a century ago; a thousand years ago; ten thousand years ago. Probably, a century from now; a thousand years from now; ten thousand years from now, what we believe about the Alpha and the Omega of our Universe, and its place, if there is a place, in an even larger context, will probably be as different. Knowledge evolves. The cosmology I learned as a teenager is already vastly different than the cosmology I read about today as a retiree. However, today is all we have to work with, but keep in mind it's a work in progress. So what do we believe now? One - our Universe had a beginning. Two - our Universe won't go out with a bang (or a crunch), but with a whimper, just slowly fading away getting thinner and thinner as if our Universe is on some sort of eternal diet. Three - our Universe is the be all and end all of all there is. What can we however speculate on now? One - There was a 'before' before our Universe began. Two - our Universe may have a different fate in store, and it could end in a bang (or crunch), not a whimper. Three - there may be far more to the cosmos than has yet been dreamt of in anyone philosophy. In fact, if one looks at the history of the size of our cosmic neck of the woods, the trend has always been towards a vaster and vaster cosmos. If our ancestors could only know then, what we know now, their minds would have been so boggled as to probably defy description. So, if we could know now, what our future generations will know, no doubt our heads would hurt too!

Part of our 'now' is the presence of something called 'dark matter', of immense importance to things cosmological, that cosmologists can't yet explain or identify. Okay, I'll make an heroic speculative effort to explain it in the light of what I've postulated above.

Now, it has been speculated that matter that gets sucked into a Black Hole undergoes a phase change into a new form of matter, sort of like ice to water to steam, or steam to water to ice. What exactly the nature of that inside-the-Black-Hole phase change is - well, your guess is as good as mine. However, I have come up with an idea. The matter sucked inside a Black Hole has been transformed into 'dark matter'! Now 'dark matter' has mass and gravity, but doesn't interact with any electromagnetic forces. We know that because 'dark matter' exists within our Universe; not of necessity hidden exclusively within Black Holes. So, how does 'dark matter' get out of a Black Hole and into our Universe at large? It doesn't, at least not as 'dark matter' but maybe a Hawking radiation. Well, that doesn't explain the 'dark matter' all around us. So there has to be an exception, and I suggest that exception was the transformation of a previous universe's Big Crunch - forming the Mother of all Black Holes - so warping space-time that it turned itself inside out and emerged as a While Hole, spilling out its contents and forming our Universe in the process. The Mother of all Black Holes transformed much of that universe's ordinary matter into 'dark matter', but the process of Black to While Hole transformation happened so rapidly that not all matter got so converted before the spewing. So, what was vomited as our Universe was a lot of 'dark energy', but not quite 100%, keeping in line with what we observe, or rather detect but don't directly observe, today.

THE FATE OF OUR UNIVERSE OMEGA: HEAT DEATH & THE BIG RIP

Once upon a way, way, way future time, our Universe will be drastically different than the one we know today. There are three possibilities. Firstly, the total amount of gravity (a pull force) will be enough to cause our Universe to slow down, stop, and reverse direction, to ultimately result in a Big Crunch. That's unlikely based on current observational evidence. Secondly, the Universe's gravity could be just enough to slow the expansion rate of the Universe down, such that it reaches zero velocity after an infinite amount of time. That sort of knife-edge balance is unlikely. Way too many factors have to balance each other out. It's like tossing a ball at a ceiling hundreds of metres high, and having the ball just stop its upward trajectory just as it ever so barely caresses the ceiling. That's way too unlikely a scenario. Thirdly, the Universe's gravity won't be enough to stop, far less reverse the expansion, and thus our Universe will forever, and forever, and forever (amen) grow ever bigger, ever decrease in mass/energy density, until overall, there's so little energy available per volume of space that even one minute of warmth will be worth thousands of times what the price of gold is today. In fact, it will be priceless. That's what is known as the Heat Death fate of our Universe.

Current observational evidence suggests the third option as the likely option. Contrary to expectations, our Universe's expansion rate is not slowing down (under gravity's pull force), but is instead accelerating under a currently postulated but mysterious 'Dark Energy' (push) force. Now this 'Dark Energy' push force is a function of space itself. The more space, the more 'Dark Energy' there is. Space is of course expanding, so 'Dark Energy' is becoming ever more dominant. Eventually, 'Dark Energy' could be powerful enough to push clusters of galaxies apart; push the components of individual galaxies apart; then the stars that comprise those galaxies and the solar systems that surround those stellar systems. 'Dark Energy', as it grows more powerful, could then push apart stars and planets; hence the molecules than make up those bodies into atoms. In turn, those atoms could be pushed apart into their fundamental particles - quarks and electrons and photons, etc. Whether or not quarks and electrons and photons can be further torn apart - well, that's pushing the boundaries of current particle physics. Anyway, all this pushing apart is collectively termed 'The Big Rip'.

The interesting bit is that if there is an outside of our Universe, then in theory, humans - assuming there are humans around trillions of years hence - or other intelligent life forms will be able to escape the Heat Death and/or Big Rip.

One obvious question rears its ugly head. If our Universe originated from another Big Crunch universe, and if our Universe is not fated to end in a Big Crunch, that breaks any sort of expected oscillation or cycle. Our Universe in turn can't generate another universe further on down the track. Yet it should since we presumably inherited that previous universe's full compliment of matter and energy and thus should be fated to ultimately Big Crunch as well. Presumably, something happened during the Big Crunch - Big Bang transition to perhaps siphon off some of the matter/energy and send it to an else-where or else-when. The extreme physics that would operate during such a transition aren't well understood and I have to leave open the possible that something more relevant to "The Twilight Zone" can happen. Of course perhaps something further on down the track might revise the current expectations for the fate of our Universe - the pendulum could swing back towards a Big Crunch scenario.

So, how do we get Big Crunches?

There are two possible ways. One is a universe that's massive enough to collapse, generate a new universe, which then collapses and the cycle repeats. No "Twilight Zone" weird physics happens within the transition, or at least not enough to alter the outcome. The other is to have one ever expanding universe intersect another ever expanding universe. The area of intersection would increase (double) the mass/energy content within that area. That then might be enough to cause that area to start contracting and ultimately Big Crunch. This is similar to, say one supernova spewing out dust and gas; another supernova - ditto. The intersection of part of the two expanding regions of gas/dust is then enough to cause a local contraction of the combined gas/dust, ultimately forming a new, next generation, star, probably an entire stellar system (star planets).

DOES THE COSMOS CARE?

In our Universe, stars are born; stars die. Their matter and energy get recycled into new stars. In our cosmic fish tank, universes are born; universes die and their matter and energy get recycled into new universes. It doesn't really matter whether a universe dies in a Big Crunch or in a Big Rip/Heat Death. The elementary bits and pieces, electrons and quarks and photons are eternal or immortal. They, unlike us, don't age. And so, in the broadest of broadest of points of view, our Universe comes to some sort of end, but 'life' goes on. The fish tank cosmos doesn't concern itself with the end of our Universe, any more than our galaxy gives a stuff about the end of our solar system, nor does our Sun concern itself with the petty affairs on one of its planets - Earth.

Humans may care - all else is indifferent.

AN ULTIMATE TRUTH

Whether or not there was some sort of ultimate beginning; whether or not there will be some sort of ultimate ending, the bits and pieces that currently make up you, were there and will be there. That, in one sense, makes you as immortal as the cosmos itself.

Akinbo,

Regarding your 5 December (14:01) post...

What do gravity-waves wave in?

Here's a rather long list of all those laws, principles and relationships of physics that require space-as-a-thing (of structure and substance).

??????????? Oops!

It turned out to be a rather short list of absolutely nothing at all.

Once upon a time light-waves (and other electromagnetic photons waving in the cosmic breeze) were thought to require something to wave in, but that proved not to be so, so I rather suspect gravity-waves (gravitons waving in the cosmic breeze) won't require space-as-a-thing either. Just a hunch.

By the by, the graviton, though undetected to date, is considered to be part of the standard model of particle physics.

John Prytz

John, P

Your hunches are generally good, but when it comes to Space perhaps not as sharp.

You said: "Once upon a time light-waves (and other electromagnetic photons waving in the cosmic breeze) were thought to require something to wave in, but that proved not to be so, so I rather suspect gravity-waves (gravitons waving in the cosmic breeze) won't require space-as-a-thing either".

You are mistaken in that regard because light is wave and IMHO not particle. What light is waving in may not yet have been put to rest in the physics community, but for those of us who believe space is something, we don't need to look too far to see that space can be waved in.

If you have a circular arrangement of beads arranged as 'O' for example and a "disturbance of space" passes by, say through the centre of the 'O' - here is what you will observe:

VIEW

Even, though I am of the view that GR has shortcomings, this prediction has implications that can help cure shortcomings in SR and GR regarding what role space can play in energy transmission. This becomes more significant when gravitational waves are accepted to represent disturbances in space as a thing (as you can visualize in linked diagram) and their velocity is c.

It was on the basis that electric and magnetic fields propagate at a velocity with a SAME value c that made light also come to be termed an 'electromagnetic' wave. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, using the 'same reasoning from mechanical principles', if light travels at same velocity c that gravitational waves travel, then light can be regarded as a belonging to a part of the spectrum of which gravitational waves belong; and my own hunch tells me that this being so light must also be capable of propagating as a disturbance in the same 'space as a thing'.

I think enough has been exchanged, if you were ready to give benefit of doubt to space you would have done that already. But as you are bent on not allowing it to exist, there is not much hope for it in your Simulated universe.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

If gravity acts similar to an electromagnetic wave, like light, wouldn't gravity then be subject to similar restrictions that light is subject to.? I'm thinking that there should be some kind of limitation to the "amount of gravity" that could saturate a particular piece of real space...?

Akinbo,

I'd better clarify one thing first. I like to have a foot in each camp - one in the virtually real landscape camp; one in the really real landscape camp. In the latter I state that space is a not-thing. In the former everything is bits and bytes.

And by extension, in the really real landscape, time is also a not-thing without structure and substance. Time is another of our mental creations. The Big Bang did not create time in the same way that it did not create space. So if space is a not-thing and time is a not-thing, then space-time is a not-thing.

Actually there is one construction that would prove that space-is-a-thing. That is the concept commonly called a wormhole. That would have to exist in something, that something being space-as-a-thing. Alas, wormholes are to date just pure speculation, a postulate, an abstract theoretical construct, a 'what if' object. Wormholes would have a bit of credibility if there was just one tiny bit of experimental evidence for them. No such evidence.

Modern physics and science are awash with speculative, postulated, theoretical 'what if' flotsam and jetsam, from string theory to extra dimensions to super-symmetry to the Multiverse to dark matter to a Big Bang that could create time and space (not to mention matter and energy), even extending so far to any verification of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence despite over fifty years of searching. The history of science is littered with thousands of theories than didn't pan out. Many scientists talk-the-talk; few walk-the-walk.

IMHO one such bit of theoretical talk-the-talk nonsense that won't pan out is space-as-a-thing. I really require one shred of experimental evidence for space-as-a-thing. It appears to be too much to ask for.

John Prytz

Lyle,

Gravity is a force and not a wave in my own reasoning. So I would rather your statement was, "If gravitational waves acts similar to an electromagnetic wave, like light, wouldn't gravitational waves then be subject to similar restrictions that light is subject to.?"

If that rephrasing is correct, I would agree. Since theoretically, both waves have the same speed, c, one could infer that they are waves of the same kind belonging to different parts of the spectrum. Just as radio waves and X-rays are inferred to be waves of the same kind but belonging to different parts of the spectrum.

Regards,

Akinbo

John,

RE: IMHO one such bit of theoretical talk-the-talk nonsense that won't pan out is space-as-a-thing. I really require one shred of experimental evidence for space-as-a-thing. It appears to be too much to ask for.

It is not too much to ask for. Several have been given to you but you turned them down without even looking at them or discrediting them.

If you are still interested in continuing the dialogue, the only other way therefore is for you to give your own one shred of philosophically, physically and mathematically absolutely incontrovertible experimental evidence for space-as-a-nothing.

I believe there is not one you can bring up that cannot be controverted by reasoning with Newtonian wisdom.

Akinbo

John, Akinbo,

Re no evidence for space as a thing: What about the evidence from "curvature of space-time" in the proximity of gravitational bodies? This has been accurately measured by space probes and is presented as confirming Einstein's theory. Whereas it is actually just not contradicting his theory.

Space-time is the output of sensory data processing. Space-time is not being deformed by gravity in founadtional, external,Object reality reality because it does not exist in external reality. With this viewpoint, curved space time is not deviating the light paths. Something else is. It can be proposed that the light paths are deviated because of the effect of gravity on the medium of space and those altered light paths give an output Image reality showing curved space-time.

Georgina,

I marvel at the unique terms/tools that you use to apprehend the truth. I say unique because the general physics community does not use tools and names like Object reality, Image reality, Sensory data processing, etc to do physics. I don't either but while not supporting adoption of those unconventional tools, it does help in revealing certain unclear aspects and can be used to debate as you have been doing with John on the question of super-position. In that area, I however support the simpler and clearer way John Prytz has discussed the quantum mystery. Physics will take place whether or not there is a sensor of reality.

On your latest post, I agree substantially with your reasoning and I may have the following questions/ additions for General relativitists to address:

- More or less, in GR space-time is a thing. It can be curved. It can vibrate, as gravitational waves traverse it. Now if the amalgam of space and time is a thing, how can the quality of being a thing be absent in its components, specifically the space component?

- On the "curvature of space-time" in the proximity of gravitational bodies, does this curved space-time accompany the body in its motion or does the body newly curve previously flat space-time that is encountered in motion (like the common ball on rubber sheet depiction)?

- If velocity of light is measured between points A and B, within the 'curvature of space-time in the proximity of gravitational bodies' (Peter J recently prefers to use 'bubble', so within the bubble), will the value obtained have the same value for light velocity between points A and B, same distance apart but now outside the 'bubble' or in flatter space-time? Already, GR seems to suggest from experimentally observed delay of signals traversing a celestial body that the velocity of light will have a higher value outside the bubble and slower within the bubble due to effect of gravity.

- If what GR suggests and seems to be experimentally found is correct, can that value of light velocity obtained within the Earth's bubble or curved space-time (299792458m/s) be elevated to a universal or global status obtainable everywhere in the cosmos and for all time?

THEN for 'Quantum Machinists' and 'Photon theorists':

When particles approach gravity they are hastened and move faster (acceleration to gravity). If this is a hallmark of particle behaviour, and contrary to this hallmark light slows down as it approaches gravity, should the idea not be questioned that having contravened this hallmark, the idea of light being particle should be seriously reviewed, if not abandoned entirely?

THEN a few comments/queries for 'Image-Object realists':

I agree with the viewpoint that "curved space time is not deviating the light paths and that Something else is".

But what could this something else be? You have in the past suggested that this 'something else' must have altered properties varying with altitude but you have refrained from going further. What do you mean by effect of gravity on the medium of space? Can space have a variable property with altitude? Does Space have mass that it can be affected by gravity or is it the 'something else' that has the mass and is affected by gravity and giving us "Output Image reality"?

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo / Georgina,

My physical evidence that is suggestive that space is a not-thing is that it cannot be detected by any apparatus possessed by or known to humans. There is no recipe for the creation of space. You cannot create something from nothing, and that includes space-as-a-thing, via the Big Bang. A not-thing requires no apparatus to detect it and no recipe to create it. Get up in front of an audience of your peers and create some space-as-a-thing from scratch, from nothingness and win yourself a trip to Stockholm and a Nobel Prize. I'm not going to hold my breath however waiting for this miracle.

I've already pointed out that things like gravity influencing light; gravity influencing space-probes, can take place in nothingness. You don't need a curvature of space-time to get light and space probes to curve under the influence of gravity.

John Prytz

MULTI-ROADS TO THE MULTIVERSE

If Mother Nature can create one Universe (ours), Mother Nature can create more than one universe - a Multiverse! The concept of a Multiverse, that there exists more than one universe, that is our Universe - perhaps an infinite number of them existing sequentially in time, or at one go in space, maybe both, is one of the hottest topics in current cosmology.

At the outset, there's no law of physics (or even of God) that says that there can be (or must be) one and only one universe, our Universe.

Three questions arise - the mechanism for the origin and evolution of other universes; what types of Multiverses can be generated; and what can the concept of a Multiverse explain that the existence of our sole Universe cannot explain?

Ways, Means and Mechanisms That Generate a Multiverse:

In the infinite beginning, there existed from square one, more than one universe. No origin event(s) are required. However, those universes will evolve and ultimately morph into other universes.

The Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum states that when anything within our Universe is forced to make an either/or decision, between two or more pathways or alternatives, each and every pathway or alternative is taken - because Mother Nature cannot make up Her mind between equal probabilities! Thus, to accommodate each and every possible choice, the Universe splits into as many other universes as is necessary to cater for all possible outcomes. Thus, where there existed initially one universe - our Universe - now there must exist an extra one, or two, or three, or whatever number of universes because our Universe had to make a decision between two, three, or whatever number of choices confronted it. Multiply that by how many crossroads our Universe comes to each and every microsecond, and you have the beginnings of a Multiverse in real quick-smart fashion.

Baby Universes via Black Holes: An advanced extraterrestrial technology might be able to create or manufacture baby universes by creating or manufacturing Black Holes. The recipe itself is simple - take a lump of matter and squeeze it down to such a density that its gravitational escape velocity exceeds that of the speed of light. Such is the text of 'Universe Manufacturing 101'. Of course one doesn't of necessity need ET. A universe with the sort of physics that permit Black Holes to form will 'breed' because those Black Holes will produce baby universes, presumably with the sort of suitable physics that will allow for further Black Holes, etc.

Bubble Universes via Inflation: To adequately explain various observational properties of our Universe, the concept of a rapid period of inflation around the time of the Big Bang event (I've seen inflation invoked both just before and just after the 'bang' itself) has been proposed. For the briefest of times, the Universe's expansion accelerated at a fantastic pace before running out of puff. The fly in the ointment is that if inflation didn't stop at the exact same nanosecond everywhere, then you'd get smaller pockets or bubbles of inflation continuing, and that each separate inflating bubble wouldn't stop at the exact same nanosecond, creating more bubbles, etc. Each separate pocket or bubble would inflate so fast and break off from the parent inflationary event to form another universe. An analogy is to shake up a say, 1/3rd empty bottle of fizzy soft drink and open the top cap. What do you get - rapid inflation, that's what! Bubbles form and expand and give rise to other bubbles which create new bubbles. Each bubble is its own separate universe.

Quantum Fluctuations: The vacuum energy can give rise to virtual particles, which can turn into actual particles under suitable conditions. It's possible for the energy to come together intensely enough to perhaps create not just a pair of virtual particles, but an entire universe of particles. That could happen again and again, a multitude of times.

Video Games Analogy: There are a Multiverse of videogames within our Universe (i.e. - Planet Earth) - in two ways. One is the collective set of the thousands to maybe hundreds of thousands of individual video games within the marketplace. Each video-game equals one possible universe. The other is that each individual video-game has hundreds to hundreds of thousands of identical copies. So the video-game Multiverse has both individuality, and sameness. Perhaps our Universe is one copy of one individual 'video game' or 'computer simulation', within a sea of thousands of identical copies of that game, within a sea of thousands of other individual games/simulations!

Types of Multiverse:

Parallel / Shadow / Alternative / Mirror / Many Worlds / Higher Dimensional (String Theory's Branes perhaps) universes - collectively, these universes would have the same laws and principles of physics that we know and love (unless you're a physics student at exam time), although the ultimate nature and evolution of each and every one might differ. In other words, all these universes will be bio-friendly, though that doesn't mean of necessity that all will contain life. Basically, these universes are all variations on a theme of our own Universe.

Simulated / Video Games Universes - Okay, within these universes, anything goes. A computer program does not have to follow or obey or simulate the existing laws and principles of physics. You want faster-than-light-travel? You got it! You want anti-gravity? You can have that too! Do you want your heroine to survive travel through wormholes and Black Holes? Fine! All the terrestrial superheroes and superhero powers - a Superman, a Spiderman, a Green Lantern, the list is near endless - all is possible. You can botch an operation - the patient survives. You can crash a plane - no causalities. You can make the Sun stand still; perform miracles like the resurrection; create new life forms and new civilizations, and boldly go where in our Universe, no one can every go! You can have a Heaven and/or a Hell, or live unprotected upon the surface of Venus (which is the same as Hell only worse).

Bubble / Baby / Quantum Fluctuation Universes / Cyclic or Oscillating Universes (standard Big Bang expansions followed by Big Crunch contractions followed by Big Bang expansions, etc.) - collectively, these universes could be as different as chalk and cheese in that the laws and principles of physics could vary to a greater or lesser extent - but vary, well these universes just might. Think of all the laws, relationships and principles in physics and vary them to your heart's content. While each universe might be unique, the rules and regulations for each and everyone one is fixed.

The Multiverse Solves These Puzzles:

In reality, the idea of a Multiverse is more a logical outcome of current thinking and evolving understanding of various discoveries and trends in modern quantum/particle physics and cosmology, relative to being a tool used to explain actual data or anomalies or observations. The basic reason is that other universes, if existing, will tend to be so far away from us in time and/or in space as to exert no influence on what we observe; what data we collect. That's not to say that the concept of a Multiverse, in one guise or another, can't be used to help account for actual or philosophical anomalies.

For example, if the computer simulation of our and by extension any Multiverse is correct, that accounts for why there are apparently two sets of independent and incompatible software physics (quantum and classical) running the cosmos.

A computer generated Multiverse (lots of different computer generated simulations coupled with possible multiple copies of each) is in one sense a cop-out in that it can be used to explain anything. You can account for all data, all anomalies, all weirdness, everything natural and everything supernatural, everything logical and illogical, everything possible, and for that matter impossible. In a computer generated and simulated universe, you can indeed believe six impossible things before breakfast - 'Alice in Wonderland' or rather 'Through the Looking Glass' rules - OK? The existence of 'impossible things' does not of necessity invalidate the possibility however.

The concept of a Multiverse does provide the ways and means of examining other possible origins for our own Universe, which currently is (the standard Big Bang event) that first there was nothing and the there was something.

The there's the Anthropic Principle: In order to explain why our Universe is so fine-tuned in terms of the laws and relationships of physics that make our universe life-friendly, it is necessary to either postulate one hell of an incredible luck of the draw, or a supernatural creator being who exists outside of space-time. The Multiverse solves the quandary by postulating that with so many universes in existence, with so many combinations of possible laws and relations of physics, that at least one universe, based on sheer chance alone, would be life-friendly. Since we can only exist in a life-friendly universe, the Multiverse helps explain our very existence, without having to resort to bucking incredible improbability or relying on the supernatural.

Double Slit Experiment: If you fire one photon, say one every minute, at two parallel slits with a photographic plate behind them, you might expect that plate to show, eventually, two blobs of light - one behind each slit, as each individual photon bullet passed through one, or the other, slit. However, what you get is instead a classic interference pattern - alternating light bands with dark bands. Why is this so? Rather, how can this be? Since the one per minute photons aren't apparently acting like individual bullets, and yet since the only thing that can possibly cause classic wave interference is the presence of other, in addition to these one per minute photon bullets, photons, then where did these other photons come from? A logical explanation is that these photons are photons that enter or interact with our Universe from another parallel universe(s).

Time Travel Paradoxes: If time travel to the past is possible, and there is only one universe, our Universe, then paradoxes can arise. You can go back in time and murder your mother before you were conceived, which means you were never born, so you couldn't have gone back in time and murdered your mother, which means you were born... However, if you travel back in time to another universe, part of the Multiverse, and kill what for all appearances looks exactly like your real mother, but is in fact a parallel universe copy or look-alike, then there is no paradox, because your real biological mother, in the universe in which you were born and raised, remains alive.

Variations on the Many Worlds Interpretation Theme:

There's a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme via the Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given 'moment' within the timeline. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops. So, to use a simple example, in one universe (A) within the Multiverse, you flip a coin and its heads. Coming to that fork in the road, a choice of heads or tails, that universe then splits into two, and you have flipped tails in the counterpart (B). Both possibilities have been realized. However, it is just as probable that there are enough universes within the Multiverse such that there was another universe (C) where you performed the identical flipping exercise and the coin came up tails (as in universe B). Postulating a Many Worlds Interpretation where there's a split and you toss heads (universe D), well that's already something that's happened (in universe A) - not in a Many Worlds scenario, but in another actual physical universe. Therefore, what need for any Many Worlds interpretations at all?

I'm not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I'm not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the phrase 'Many Worlds' (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists - it's too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger's Cat (in the box which has been constructed to have a 50/50 chance of killing it within one hour) experiment. Identical cats; identical set-ups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical - all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other - absolutely identical). In one universe, the observer observes the cat alive after one hour; the other universe, well it's the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two to cater for both possibilities of a living cat, and a dead cat. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split.

While I have little difficulty coming to terms with an infinite (or as close to infinite as makes no odds) number of universes (the Multiverse) that have collectively existed since the get-go in order to cater for all possibilities, I have some trouble coming to accept the idea that (Many) Worlds are created in an ongoing manner, as spin-offs, in response to evolving events that require this choice or that choice or the next choice. The difficulty, which I've never seen addressed in any books I've read on the subject is, where does all the additional matter/energy for the extra world - actually universe - come from? If a whole new universe is created to allow for the existence of both a cat that's alive and a dead cat (in that cat-in-the-box thought experiment), that additional universe (to cater for the other option) seems to be a free lunch - something created from nothing. That seems to be a violation of the conservation of matter/energy. That's much too big an ask for me to swallow! Therefore, I vote solely for the Multiverse, which because of the sheer numbers involved, allows for the incorporation of the Many Worlds Interpretation as a bonus. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds Interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcomes (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it's only probable or possible.

Further recommended readings:

Carr, Bernard (Editor); Universe or Multiverse?; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2007:

Gribbin, John; In Search of the Multiverse; Allen Lane, London; 2009:

Kaku, Michio; Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos; Penguin Books, London; 2005:

Rees, Martin; Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others; Free Press, London; 2002:

Vilenkin, Alex; Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes; Hill & Wang, New York; 2006:

Wolf, Fred Alan; Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds; Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York; 1988:

Okay John, I think Georgina and I can pin you to the ground now. But wont use a 'choke hold' method hoping you don't get too slippery...

You say that, gravity can influence light and that you don't need a curvature of space-time to get light to curve.

Very well. Can you reveal the precise mechanism how gravity influences light so that it curves without the necessary mediation of space or space-time?

I believe that is not too much to ask. You earlier passed some of the responsibility to particle physicists and the standard model, but I want you to take responsibility. You earlier mentioned gravitons, if that is your mechanism can you say exactly how the graviton interacts with the photon, and what the experimentally observable consequences will be?

Akinbo

Further to previous post...

In Newtonian view, gravity acts only between things that have mass, while in General relativity gravity acts on the nature of spacetime.

Photon has no mass and in the particle view is not a vibration of space or spacetime nor does it emit gravitons.

Therefore how does graviton act on a massless photon?

If action-reaction holds and cannot be violated, can there be any effect on a photon which does not emit gravitons and which can therefore not exchange gravitons with a celestial body?

Akinbo, All,

What is out there is either space or space-time, the terms can not be used interchangeably. An observer receives sensory data, lets say just light for now, EM radiation. The data that arrives together can have taken different lengths of time to get there. So the data is amalgamated into an output that has a time component within it. Does that mean that the external reality shares the same temporal spread? No because the sensory data from which images are formed can be distributed within a space that has no time dimension,just space. However old or young the data it exists -Now together in space.

The potential sensory data distribution is altered in the proximity of a gravitational body. It is known that the speed of light is affected by the medium it travels through. Air and water are an example of two substances with different refractive indices demonstrating the phenomenon of refraction.A varying refractive index curves light in a way that is in appearance similar to curved space-time. I don't think this is a new idea. Perhaps then, it is not flexible space-time that is causal but a medium affecting the distribution of the data in space that can be used to from a space-time output reality.This is evidence that the space is not empty because empty space can not cause varying refraction.That is in contradiction to John's statement that there is no evidence. Whether the alternative model is considered acceptable is another matter.

It is necessary to propose uni-temporal foundational space as it overcomes the temporal paradoxes, allows absolute space and relative space-time to 'co-exist' as different facets of reality, without contradiction,it makes relativity intuitive and the perceived arrow of time,despite non simultaneity of events, explicable.

It can not be that flexible space-time is causal because it is not space time that exists in the external, foundational Object reality.What is causing gravity then? Something happening in space. My hunch is that it is to do with the result of all absolute motion through space. That is what is missing in a model where a static three dimensional reference frame is moving through time.

Akinbo, re terminology. I am using terms necessary to describe what is going on.They relate to the explanatory framework for physics that I am using. Two diagrams and link to web site recently uploaded to the Alternative models of reality forum page. I could use full description of each of the terms I want to use each time instead of just the specific new term but it makes the communication unwieldly. Would you have said to Einstein ' I don't support the use of Calculus because that's not how we do physics.'

John wrote,

"I've already pointed out that things like gravity influencing light; gravity influencing space-probes, can take place in nothingness. You don't need a curvature of space-time to get light and space probes to curve under the influence of gravity."

There is a difference between not requiring something in your model of reality and there being no evidence for it.

Georgina, it is difficult not to agree with almost all what you have stated here, including inventing your own mathematical/ physical tools.

I zero in on, "This is evidence that the space is not empty because empty space can not cause varying refraction".

This appears to imply that we can have 'empty space' that does not cause varying refraction and 'space that is not empty'.

The next task is what could that space that is not empty contain that is causing the refraction? I suggest 'dark matter' but I wont dwell on it so as not to distract from the conversation.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Georgina quoted in "Faster than light" from Wiki: "Von Guericke sidestepped the vexed question of the meaning of "nothing" by asserting that all objective reality fell into one of two categories - the created and the uncreated. Space and Time were objectively real but were uncreated, whereas matter was created. In this way he created a new fundamental category alongside Aristotle's category of substance, that of the uncreated. His understanding of Space is theological and similar to that expressed [a bit later] by Newton in the Scholium to the Principia".

Georgina misspelled him Guerricke, perhaps because of similarity with the French word guerra. He was born Gericke and honored by nobility in French: de Guericke. The reason for me to mention him again is that his experiments on empty space led to steam engine as well as to electricity.

It is demonstrably possible to evacuate space from air and also shield it from electric and other fields.

Eckard

Akinbo,

Gravity can influence light (photons) just like gravity can influence electrons, neutrons and protons. I think the correct term is that photons have no "rest mass". But a photon can still convey a force. An ultra-violet (UV) photon can do your skin a mischief; an X-ray photon can damage your cellular DNA; an infra-red (IR) photon can heat up a rock and cause it to expand, and we've all probably seen those scientific 'toys' of rotating panes of metal that go round and round inside a glass ball when light (photons) hit them. A similar analogy applies to gravitons which also have no "rest mass" but which can do you a mischief if you try to parachute out of a plane but forget to put your parachute on first. So, gravity and EM can interact. They are both things. The what is not in doubt. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, the how and the precise why what happens when what happens is still mysterious. I don't feel guilty for lack of an exact explanation since you won't get one anywhere or from anyone else either.

Can you explain exactly why the south pole and the north pole of a magnet attract? Or why and how the north pole of a magnet repels another north pole? You know what happens, but the how and why is beyond you to explain. You know an electron and a positron will annihilate upon contact. You know what happens but not the how and exact nature of why what happens. You know that the electric charge on a proton is equal and opposite to that on an electron. Can you tell me why? Neither can anyone else. Can you actually tell me what electric charge actually is? You know what it does but how does it do it and why does it do it?

Maybe it's all just programmed software - bits and bytes!

John Prytz