Alternative Models of Cosmology

Dynamic Dimensionality

Zeeya, Fellows, I write as a keen tenderfoot in your fascinating discussions,

Alternatively... imagine the nascent Universe which, at its point of inception, has zero dimensions. Next imagine an initial extremely rapid early expansion (inflation?) of that point universe (singularity), through a closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, into a Universe which fleetingly has integer-one spatial dimension. Now imagine that one dimensional universe seamlessly continuing to expand, but with decelerating expansion, through a second sequential closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, momentarily establishing a Universe which has integer-two spatial dimensions (surface of last scattering?). From that transient two dimensional state, imagine further continuous expansion of the Universe being realised through a third sequential closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, creating a Universe which has integer-three spatial dimensions.

Consider; might this have been how the current state of our universe emerged (unfurled) into its three spatial dimensions? For a visual metaphor, kindly reflect on the unfurling of a fern from a seed, through a growing sprout (koru), then revealing a frond surface, to become a fully formed space-filling plant? Applying Occams razor, is this imagined continuous progression of dynamic dimensionality (seamlessly from 0 to 1, to 2, to 3 spatial dimensions) not more physically and mathematically less complicated than a cataclysmic and instant short-cut leap from 0 to 3 spatial dimensions at the Big Bang (and why did it immediately settle at 3 dimensions)?

Consider further; might the closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality, be what we perceive as the illusion of Time as it is counted or clocked between successive integer spatial dimensions? Perhaps our current Universe, which has three clearly revealed spatial dimensions, is continuing to undergo dynamic dimensional and cosmological co-expansion, with dimensional unfurling through Time (closed unit interval [0,1] fractional dimensionality) continuing towards four revealed spatial dimensions and beyond in the future?

Consider; might there be a reservoir of furled dimensionality which is revealing itself through unfurling from 0 dimensions at the point of inception, through 0 to 1, to 2, to the present 3 spatial dimensions and beyond in the future to 4, to 5, to 6, to 7, to 8, to say 9 or 10 spatial dimensions with late accelerating expansion? Perhaps such an unfurling reservoir of 9 or 10 furled dimensions is related to those multiple dimensions postulated in the foundations of String Theories?

Intriguingly; in such a Universe with fundamentally dynamic dimensionality, the furled equal factors of revealed space would represent the furled capacity constrained to a revealed scale. Such dimensional and cosmological co-expansion may thus be proportional to a very simple radical expression, where the radicand is the number of revealed dimensions and the index is the remainder of furled dimensions where total dimensionality is fixed. Interestingly, modelling with this simple radical expression, the ensuing extent of dimensional and cosmological co-expansion appears to exhibit characteristics of early inflation, intermediate decelerating expansion, nearly linear expansion and late accelerating expansion. For those interested in graphic numerical illustrations of this simple radical expression, kindly look at this short paper http://figshare.com/articles/Dimensional_and_Cosmological_Co_Expansion_through_Dynamic_Dimensionality/1036499

Hoping to get some scientific feedback and perhaps even develop joint author traction on these ideas with esteemed forum members...

Hi Angus,

This sounds like something I'd enjoy discussing with you, having considered similar approaches before. You might want to look up Rainbow Gravity, Quantum Einstein gravity, and CDT, to see what some other folks have done in this vein. I will follow up on this question, and your paper, after the essay contest rating period has ended.

All the Best,

Jonathan

The crisis in the fundamental physics, including cosmology - the "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya), the "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), it is the crisis of the philosophical foundations, especially in understanding of space and time.

The way to overcome the crisis - is a further deepening of the Geometry, but rather in the "origin of Geometry" (E.Husserl) and the dialectico - ontological unification of matter, search for the absolute foundations of physics and knowledge, the absolute generating structure. Necessary to consider limiting (absolute, unconditional) states of matter: absolute motion (rotation, "vortex", discretuum) + absolute rest (linear state, continuum)) + absolute wave ("figaro" of states = discretuum + continuum).

The geometrized basis, the triune Universum: "universum-sphere" + "universum-cube" + "universum-cylinder". Each limit (absolute, unconditional) state of its way - the absolute vector, the vector of the absolute state. This "triangle" of absolute states of matter - the ontological representation of the triune foundation - "origin of geometry", the beginning of physics, the beginning, framework and carcas of knowledge. This is what David Gross calls - "general framework structure" (D.Gross, an interview "Iz chego sostoit prostranstvo-vremya/What is in the space-time) the same for the QM and for GM. Today QM and GM are parametrical theories without ontologic justification.

Semantically poor picture of the world "In the beginning was the Big Bang" should be replaced with a picture of the world "In the beginning was the Logos (MetaLaw, the "law of laws")...", the base of which the "General framework structure" or the "Absolute generating (maternal) structure" . This is the «Cosmic Origin».

Should always be keep in mind the philosophical covenant of John Wheeler:

"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

It would be nice if FQXi will hold the new contest of cosmological models: «Cosmic Origins». In the world today there is a lot of alternative views and models , other than «the classic big-bang model».

Carlo Rovelli made a good conclusion in the article SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS :

"This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is.

This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense.

I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences."

So, in the search for primordial structure of the Cosmos (Universum). The first step: from science formulas to science forms.

Regards,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello,

I have no direct business with cosmology, but I have a deep interest in fractal geometry and have recently made discoveries about their properties that are seem to only point to and have direct business with QM and cosmology.

Yesterday I published my findings.

I heard Max Tegmark mention this forum and am hoping it is the right place to introduce different perspectives.

Blair

Fractal Geometry a Possible Explanation to the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe and Other Standard ΛCMB Model Anomalies

Abstract:

One of the great questions in modern cosmology today is what is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. It has been recently discovered this property is not unique to the universe; trees also do it and trees are fractals. Do fractals offer insight to the accelerating expansion a property of the universe and more?

In this investigation the classical (Koch snowflake) fractal was inverted to model and record observations from within an iterating fractal set and at a static (measured) position. New triangles sizes were held constant allowing earlier triangles in the set to expand as the set iterated.

Velocities and accelerations were calculated for both the area of the total fractal, and the distance between points within the fractal set using classical kinematic equations. The inverted fractal was also tested for the Hubble's Law.

It was discovered that the area(s) expanded exponentially; and as a consequence, the distances between points - from any location within the set - receded away from the observer, at exponentially increasing velocities and accelerations. The model was consistent with the standard ΛCMB model of cosmology and demonstrated: a singularity Big Bang beginning, infinite beginnings; homogeneous isotropic expansion consistent with the CMB; an expansion rate capable of explaining the early inflation epoch; Hubble's Law - with a Hubble diagram and Hubble's constant; and accelerating expansion with a 'cosmological' constant. It was concluded that the universe behaves as a general fractal object. Thought the findings have obvious relevance to the study of cosmology, they may also give insight into: the recently discovered accelerating growth rate of trees; the empty quantum like nature of the atom; and possibly our perception value of events with the passage of time.

Blair,

It is interesting that you describe this as acceleration, when according to theory, it is deceleration from that initial expansion of the early universe. Now if it is actually an optical effect, compounding on itself, then your perception of an outward acceleration would be more valid. Also there would be no need for dark energy to explain why that deceleration flattened out, as it gets closer to our location.

Suffice to say, we are getting into crackpot territory here, if the thought police catch up to us.

Regards,

John M

Blair,

Interesting model. Much compatible fractal theory exists which you don't cite. A few with close similarities (but also different conclusions) are Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, The 'Amplituhedron', Quantum Gauge theories etc. See also my essays and discussions here and also Bill McHarris's of last year.

Your link was dead, a common problem here as the system is very fussy about addresses and repeated colons etc. This one should work;

">https://www.academia.edu/8415112/Fractal_Geometry...etc.

](https://www.academia.edu/8415112/Fractal_Geometry_a_Possible_Explanation_to_the_Accelerating_Expansion_of_the_Universe_and_Other_Standard_%CE%9BCMB_Model_Anomalies

) I invoke a fractal 'Helical' hierarchy and spread function consistent with Helmholtz vortices and experimental quantum optics. In terms of cosmology I disagree with your conclusions and derive a cyclic model more consistent than the 'Big Bang', which is ever less supported anyway. Infinite accelerative expansion is also problematic, but then trees also have a cycle, and I note you correctly identify some of the theoretical problems (though far from all).

I hope you don't expect too many to actually read your paper. That's not always how it's done in these parts (or it seems anywhere really!) But I do hope you may read mine and also question or comment. This Penrose video is interesting, incorporating an analogy of your hypothesis (and closer one of mine). Penrose CCC video..

You'll find most of mine with yours here; [link:independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter ]Academia.edu./link].

Peter

The house in general and Peter, John M, Steve and Tom in particular,

I still need help on this CMBR. We, i.e. Peter, John M and I just had some discussion on the 'Black hole' thread but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss here and not distract on the black hole topic.

For such an important evidence as CMBR it would appear we are not yet clear about certain things. I thought I was right about what I know but I may be wrong and also need doubts clarified. IF a smoke analogy is appropriate, regarding the CMBR...

(1) Is this to be seen as a fog present everywhere in the universe or (2) is it a smoke streaming towards us from all directions or (3) is there a third model?

In some accounts I see different statements that make it difficult to be clear. For instance, it is said not to have any discernible direction or source, in which case it would resemble a fog (model 1) since smoke would have a direction from a source, but in other descriptions it is said to bear the imprints of what happened in earlier epochs, suggesting that it has been travelling towards us carrying those imprints (model 2).

On the view that is propagating towards us, it makes sense that the imprints of what it encounters on the way are on it enabling us to glimpse scenarios from earlier epochs. But there doesn't seem to be a discernible direction in space that one can say points towards the edges of the universe or point towards the past, which would have been the case for radiation coming from such a direction.

John M in reply, says "The surface of last scattering is wherever that light emanates from, be it the sun, stars and planets, or the walls of the room and the people in it, that provide us with the information about them. Now this background radiation has no such apparent source of 'last scattering'", which as I pointed out would seem to imply that we reading this are also part of that 'surface of last scattering'.

Some clarification is therefore appreciated given the importance of the CMBR evidence to cosmology...

Regards,

Akinbo

PS. John, M, it would seem there is a difference between light been redshifted because it is being cooled by some mechanism like reducing energy density and light being redshifted because the source is moving away.

As I dig deeper I now realize the last word has not been heard about the CMBR. See .. I guess the origin of CMBR is not a closed case afterall.

The link was ripped off One physicist's radical reinterpretation of the cosmic microwave background.

Akinbo,

The data and interpretive flaws Fahr found seem irrefutable but where his solution invoked 'scattering photons off photons' it departed from those or any logical foundations I know. That's a shame because with the one small logical addition that "clouds of particles can move" his scattering off matter would work just fine on it's own. The axiom is; 'c is localised wherever it goes'.

It's almost as if your grey aliens have put a 'block' on anyone with a PhD understanding that key dynamic relationship!

For the CMBR there are 2 basic assumptions to pick from; 'Ether' or 'no ether'. With ether we can have just waves, probably of smaller 'particles', quantised to big ones at detections, or with 'no ether' we must have quanta, which can be constituted by OAM at some wavelength. So both can have both! Choose your preference, but in both cases it's irrefutable that all radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by condensed particles of matter from fermions upwards. So it can ONLY propagate at c wrt the local dielectric medium rest frame (once all has interacted with the medium particles) what other possible logic fits findings!?

Now where that radiation first 'came from' is the ONLY other relevant matter. I've studied it from when the brilliant Bob Dicke predicted it and Penzias and Wilson first found it by accident. Dicke was no fool and spot on. It is ALL emissions, from EVERYWHERE. The BB stuff was just a 'hijack' by the troglodytes as those emissions might just be long gone considering we were there!!

If we all lived on planet 'Dimwit3' in a galaxy doing 0.5c wrt Earth, and found light coming from all directions at 'c', would we be arrogant enough to think it did c wrt 'US' on all OTHER planets too rather than c wrt each planet? I suspect anyone with half a brain would realise we were NOT quite that important!!

I' expect science officer Spock's giant eyebrows would have lifted so much they'd have got caught in the light fittings! (shame he couldn't laugh). Can you explain to me, as if I'm Spock, what it is that suggests some other 'logic' than that? Then we can dissect it.

Many thanks

Peter

Peter, thanks for replying. We have agreed on the 'domestication' of light speed to the medium rest frame, it is only our mechanisms that are not aligned. With regard to "For the CMBR there are 2 basic assumptions to pick from;... Choose your preference...". Please help me with my choice.

I came across this very simple e-book today, Einstein for Everyone, by JOHN D. NORTON. I highly recommend it for clearing quite a lot of misconceptions about Einstein's theory. Same author writes a simple to understand account about preferred frame for motion

Wikipedia does not do enough justice to the topic but I went through all the same before later coming across this experiment by Silvertooth , which claims to have detected a 378km/s motion of the earth through space by a mechanism quite different from the CMBR observation. Please criticize this experiment and let me know whether it is of any significant value. Although the experimenter published a letter to Nature.

With all these and on that topic, I can now ask you again if the CMBR can be used as a global preferred frame of reference (i.e. not a local like the Earth, Sun, Galaxy, etc), but a global one by which absolute rest and motion can be defined? In answering, take note of this from John Norton's e-book: "No experiment can reveal the absolute motion of the observer. This is a consequence of the principle of relativity. Another way to see it is to recall that the principle of relativity leads us to conclude that absolute motion cannot figure in any law of physics. But if it is not in the laws and the laws determine what can be, then absolute motion cannot be. So no experiment could detect it!

Now, if experiment now detects an absolute motion, what next for our physics?

Best regards,

Akinbo

PS. I recommend Pentcho to also read John Norton's book. Really useful to comprehend if it is desired to Rip Einstein Apart.

Akinbo,

There is much we can't directly detect which we infer exists, and some we CAN infer may exist. In a hierarchical model the 'centre of universe' rest frame can be inferred but can never be measured or utilised locally.

I'm quite familiar with Norton and agree much of his analysis, including space and time as very different, but he stops when he hits the logical paradox (as only the hierarchy resolves it).

Your use of the word 'global' betrays the common limit of thinking. 'Global' only refers to EARTH as 'everything'. We must substitute 'Galactic' and 'Universal' for the greater scales. This means that when we invoke 'domestication', we must invoke it consistently, that means at ALL scales!!

i.e. Light speed is localised to OUR galaxy on arrival (c wrt the AGN).

light speed is ALSO then localised to OUR solar system on arrival!! (c wrt the sun) (which NASA well knows from probe radio signals).

It also applies consistently at SMALLER scales, where the two frames become Maxwell's near and far fields. Now THAT is enough to make many mainstream physicist blow a fuse! but it resolves the 'Maxwell ether and KRR paradoxes and also at last recovers Snell's Law at the moving refractive plane. The 'proof of the pudding'.

I recall I also agree Silvertooth (he's not alone) , but have to dash now, Mum's 90th, but I'll catch up with the other links later.

Best wishes

Peter

You have framed the CBMR issue quite nicely with the three basic cosmologies.

"(1) Is this to be seen as a fog present everywhere in the universe or (2) is it a smoke streaming towards us from all directions or (3) is there a third model?"

(1) This cosmology assumes a plasma aether fills space and that is what makes things happen. The actions that we see from the past are affected by the plasma aether in between us and the action. This universe is steady state and has tired light.

(2) The expanding universe is what I hope you mean since that is the mainstream. In an expanding universe, the CMBR is a lucky accident of time since it is now moving at 99.998% of c and will go over the event horizon in a billion years or so. Future astonomers will only see black sky...and then try to figure out why.

(3) The shrinking universe is what I like, but no one ever talks about a shrinking universe except of course locally. The CMBR in a shrinking universe is blue shifted with a gamma of 546, so that means the actual temperature is 2.7 / 546 = 4.9e-3 K. There is still an event horizon, but the universe decay rate is what defines force and so astronomers will see a similar CMBR in a billion years and deduce a similar cosmology. By then, we will have figures this stuff out...I hope.

The CMBR noise ripple is a wonderful gift of time. The multipolar noise spectrum makes sense for either an expanding big bang or a shrinking from full size universe. The plasma aether guys are in trouble, though, and the noise spectrum just does not seem to be consistent with any kind of aether story. It takes a lot of "spin" to get the CMBR consistent with plasma aether.

The CMBR dipole does indeed show us where we are in the cosmos, moving toward Virgo/Leo at 371 km/s. That comoving velocity gives us a proper time, which is absolute...or at least 99.9998% absolute and within the 28 ppm ripple of our 2.7 K background. Even though our local atomic time is frame dependent a varies, our proper time is tied to the CMBR frame and therefore the same for the whole universe.

The one endearing mystery in the CMBR is the large scale structure, the cold spots and the great attractors. These are the quadrupole and octupole noise peaks that there is a lot of argument about right now.

Thanks for the Silvertooth link, that was very interesting.

"...I went through all the same before later coming across this experiment by Silvertooth , which claims to have detected a 378km/s motion of the earth through space by a mechanism quite different from the CMBR observation. Please criticize this experiment and let me know whether it is of any significant value."

Of course, here is the real reason. The measurement was an artifact of day to night room temperature changes.

Reproducing Silvertooth

I liked Silvertooth's bi-interferometer, a ring interferometer coupled with a linear interferometer. However, anyone who has done interferometry knows that the data just does not look like Silvertooth's hand drawn sine waves. That made me a little suspicious.

So when Marett reproduced Silvertooth's result with real looking data with noise, I thought great, this is real. Then when Marett went on to show that the effect went away when the room temperature did not vary from night to day and had nothing to do with Leo, the experiment made perfect sense as an artifact.

Coupling a ring (i.e. Sagnac) interferometer to a linear interferometer is a good idea and should first of all measure earth's rotational velocity. The ring interferometer is sensitive to optical rotation effect and the linear interferometer is much less sensitive to rotation. So Silvertooth's gismo should first of all recorded the earth's rotation velocity, ~300 m/s at that latitude, then maybe earth's orbit, 30 km/s, but never in your dreams the 371 km/s CMBR velocity. The optical rotatary effects are just too small to measure in this manner.

Thanks Steve. I will trust your judgement on this and throw Silvertooth in the trash can.

I had already suspected that no optical experiment with the light source and light path on Earth surface can detect the Earth's motion (being in the same ship -Galilean relativity). However, light paths from beyond and outside the ship can reveal the ship's motion hence the CMBR revealing a velocity 370km/s.

You like 'The shrinking universe' but I don't agree with it. The CMBR temperature is now 2.7K. In a shrinking universe it must then have been even colder in the past since energy density was lower and you say it is now increasing (shrinking volume).

What do you think about the CMBR being a preferred frame of reference for motion and rest? I have been begging Peter to accept that it is but he would not bulge.

Peter,

Happy 90th birthday to your Mum. Hope she shared the secrets of her longevity with you, which I am sure would not include 'absorption and emission at local c'

Regards,

Akinbo

It is true that optical experiments cannot show linear motion, but they can show rotation since rotation changes inertia. The question is can optical experiments show gravity waves and the Ligo results will be coming over the next couple of years.

I do not think that gravity waves distort space any more than light does and so these efforts will prove futile. However, there are other experiments with particle physics that should show our direction and velocity, like IceCube, Cuore, DMIce, etc. There is a way to measure our motion...

As for our shrinking universe, you are correct in that the actual temperature of the CMB would be 0.0049 K instead of 2.7 Kelvin. However, that is not inconsistent with the observations. Moreover, having the speed of light define the collapse rate of the universe has a very appealing symmetry. If all objects are actually comoving at the speed of light, all mass = E/c2 is clear without the Higg's boson. All motion is a decrease in velocity and an increase in inertial mass and it is as if light were standing still and we are moving.

I agree that the CMBR is a perfect absolute reference, at least to within 99.9998% anyway. Everyone in the universe measures the exact same CMBR and so you simply cannot get any more absolute than that.

Dear Steve, thanks for being forthright in your reply. In response...

"As for our shrinking universe, you are correct in that the actual temperature of the CMB would be 0.0049 K instead of 2.7 Kelvin. However, that is not inconsistent with the observations."

Although your idea was interesting, I think it is now my grim professional medical duty to pronounce 'collapsing universe' dead. Unless of course you come up with urgently needed oxygen, I should be inviting Eckard, John M, Tom, Peter and co as the pall bearers. LOL :)

Part of the success of the Big bang model is the relative abundance of the elements (primordial nucleosynthesis). Those with stronger bonds able to be stable under the high ambient energy conditions are more in abundance, e.g. hydrogen, helium, etc. Structure formation and abundance follows quarks, atoms, molecules in that order. With starting ambient temperatures of 0.0049K, almost everything including humans would be stable and would exist at the beginning. The evidence says otherwise.

"It is true that optical experiments cannot show linear motion, but they can show rotation since rotation changes inertia"

I think no need complicating with gravity waves. The motion of the Earth about the Sun is not linear! It is rotational and optical experiments (notably M&M) did not see it. It is only when the light path is from a distant source (like Lunar laser ranging, Pulsars, GPS, etc) that the Earth based observer sees BOTH his linear and rotational motion (against Einstein's SR postulate that electromagnetic, e.g. optical phenomena CANNOT be used to discern Earth motion).

I look forward to the results and interpretation of IceCube, Cuore, DMIce, etc. There is a way to measure our motion... YES, We Can! CMBR already shows the way optical experiments can measure the motion of the Earth.

"I agree that the CMBR is a perfect absolute reference, at least to within 99.9998% anyway. Everyone in the universe measures the exact same CMBR and so you simply cannot get any more absolute than that'.

Peter J. is yet to concede. I think Newton deserves our post-humous apology. Despite various arguments from effects, causes and properties, we appear to have been late in catching up. I have linked these previously. I do so again. Read also the Scholium. We have allowed Mach and Leibniz to lead us astray. Now that CMBR is showing us the way, why can we not go back to the fork in the road to rediscover our physics.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Ahh, you doth protest too much...

I look for observation that the collapsing universe cannot explain, and I have not yet found any.

"Although your idea was interesting, I think it is now my grim professional medical duty to pronounce 'collapsing universe' dead."

What my analysis shows is that there is a conspiracy of equivalence between the expanding and collapsing universes. That is, they both predict the same isotope ratios and the same hydrogen to helium rations and they both are consistent therefore with observation. A collapsing unverse actually needs fewer constants to explain the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

So elemental abundances should not dissuade you, it is only the truth with which you should you align.

Okay Steve. Will stop protesting. I actually woke up thinking that perhaps global warming is due to collapsing universe rather than to environmental pollution. Just a foolish idea...

Regards,

Akinbo