Alternative Models of Cosmology

em drive using metamaterials - put materials like dielectric through metamatrials and around metamaterials to help reflect photons - same is true for sound and phonons

photons - metamaterials that create negative radiation pressure at back of rocket

Kurt Stocklmeir

em drive using metamaterials - 1 end uses not linear metamaterials that create negative radiation pressure this is back of rocket - front end of rocket uses normal materials that create positive radiation pressure - the rocket will get about 2 times momentum of a photon when the photon hits the front end or back end - this breaks all laws of Newton

metamaterials for ocean waves - use metamaterials to make big waves in ocean - big waves can make electricity

Kurt Stocklmeir

shape of time and space around mass vibrates - some times the shape of time and shape around mass changes a small amount and it vibrates a lot - shape around planets moon and stars are connected - when shape around moon vibrates it influences shape around earth - planets moons and stars fly around the universe and this can make shapes change and shapes can vibrate a lot - these things can look a little like gravity waves Kurt Stocklmeir

IT=(BIT, IT)

The idea of a rotating universe is gravely midunderstood today. Some think that a rotating, expanding universe could not be isotropic and uniform. There is already existing work which shows this is not the case. It has been thought that if the universe was rotating, it would leave a CMB print called the ''axis of evil.'' While this is true, a distinguishable axis can only be identified if there is a significant rotary property to the universe; however, as Hawking has eloquently put, 'These models could well be a reasonable description of the universe we observe, however observational data are compatible only with a slow rotation.'' So is this the end? No its not, because its also been shown by Hoyle and Narlikar that a rotary property of a universe in fact exponentially decays as it expands. If this is the case, then is there any evidence our universe rotated in the past?

Yes, a statistical significance of a 1 in a million finds that a large pecentage of galaxies that have been studied recently all possess a certain handedness, suggesting that they alligned themselves with the primordial rotation of the universe. We also have a second piece of evidence, dark flow is an unusual motion all in a common direction located in some galaxies that have been mapped - a question arises, what if dark flow is in fact a residual rotary property of the universe?

Inflation appears to be, being attacked right now, even by some of its creators. The reason for this is because inflation naturally leads to a multiverse and it is widely considered that a multiverse theory is not a testable theory and so is not real science. In the looming age of requiring alternatives to long standing theories of the big bang, a rotation property could explain a dark energy (like) force driving initial expansion from a centrifugal force field which would inexorably arise in a universe if it possessed a spin.

https://gyroverse.quora.com/

Stephen Hawking, when describing his theory of no boundary conditions for a general audience, draws attention to how the meaning of "beginning" assumes a context where time already exists. So thinking about the "beginning" of the universe would be like thinking about "the beginning of the beginning." So do we have to give up?

No. Say that any mathematical model of time is like the model of a full-size airplane which is flown in a wind tunnel. The mathematical model of time in the wind tunnel would, in this case, NOT be time itself-- just as the model of an airplane in the wind tunnel is not the actual plane. Although we may never fully understand the universe, in the wind tunnel we can at least try.

Relatively new mathematics can be used to build a different kind of "wind tunnel" for understanding time. Here I'm referring to "non-wellfounded" sets as a way to model time-- the best initial reference being Lawrence Moss's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). In this new kind of wind tunnel, the "beginning" of time has more structure.

(And perhaps support new models of relativity, although I can only speculate-- of course.)

Here's a "non-wellfounded set" theoretic model of time:

time = (pointInTime, time)

which on substitution yields

time = (pointInTime, (pointInTime, (pointInTime..., time)...)

In this "wind tunnel" model of time, time is a "stream" (as it's called) of pointsInTime.

"pointInTime" would be the type of the point in time. Usually we think of the stream as comprising real numbers, where one real number for pointInTime could be less than or greater than some other pointInTime, just as one real number could be less than or greater than some other real number. For example--

time = 1, 2, 3...etc.

We next add "nonstandard analysis" to this wind tunnel in order to get

time = (monadInTime, time)

Where monadInTime is a nonstandard monad, which comprises a real number surrounded by a "halo" of nonstandard numbers infinitely close to the standard part of the monad (which would be a standard real number, as above).

A nonstandard monad of time in the wind tunnel would have its "halo" of nonstandard numbers infinitely close to the standard part split into two parts-- the "nonstandardPast" and the "nonstandardFuture," each being infinitely close to the standard part of the monad, which in the wind tunnel is again a real number.

Now in the wind tunnel, we add that the nonstandardFuture is where possibilities exist, and the nonstandardPast is where information exists-- specifically, information in the form of "infons" as they are called in "situation theory." (Again, the best initial references are in SEP.)

This wind tunnel adds more structure to the meaning of "beginning."

First,

time = (pointInTime, time)

On the way to "beginning," time starts out as something that simply exists, ii.e., time = (pointInTime, time)

Next, we exert some invisible force to pull pointInTime apart, in order to separate the nonstandardPast and nonstandardFuture.

Then we add possibilities, which exist in the nonstandardFuture. And information, which exists in the nonstandardPast.

However, in the process of beginning possibilities are initially zero. Whatever would exist in this wind tunnel of proper time would in this case have no possibilities. In other words, it has not yet begun.

Now make the possibilities nonzero, and the particle of system we are modeling in the wind tunnel finally "begins."

And when all its possibilities are zeroed, it "ends." NonstandardPast and nonstandardFuture collapse, and the universe in the wind tunnel ends.

In this kind of wind tunnel, "beginning" is a staged process. "The beginning of beginning" is just the first stage in the process.

Maybe in a hundred or so years, someone (not me) will learn how to design "infomorphisms" (Information Flow by Barwise and Seligman) which connect to General Relativity.

For Stephen, from afar

(I never met Stephen Hawking. We were utter strangers. But "Stephen Hawking," "Professor Hawking," and every other way I can think of saying this about him just doesn't convey what I want to say. Please forgive me when I make the presumption of writing "Stephen.")

In his no-boundary model, Stephen took us to the limits of thought. In everyday natural language, to say that time has a beginning assumes the context of time "to begin with." For to mean anything, the word "beginning" must already connote the existence of time. So "the beginning of time" is meaningless. Stephen expressed this in mathematics.

Stephen, I wish I could have gotten everything I've been writing down here on this web site in good enough order to present something you could have read with interest.

Say that the very small thing you described in mathematics that's near the usually thought of "beginning" of the Universe has a proper time. And that coordinate time comes from proper time, not the other way around, as seems to be described in the received equation.

Today everything in the Universe would have a proper time expressed in terms of a new category of mathematics I've been trying to proselytize here, called "non-wellfounded sets":

properTime = (moment, properTime)

Where substituting on the RHS of the equation gives:

properTime = (moment, (moment, (moment, ... properTime)...)

Which for each thing that exists, produces a stream of moments comprising its proper time-- from which coordinate time would then emerge.

And,

moment = (nonstandardPast, standardPresent, nonstandardFuture)

Where "moment" is a monad, in terms of Abraham Robinson's nonstandard analysis.

The very small thing that Stephen describes near what's usually thought of as "the beginning" of the Universe would, when the Universe exists, then have the same form-- a stream of moments where each moment is a nonstandard monad as above.

Given this new category of mathematics there now seems to be a new way to think about "the beginning" of time:

When the Universe "begins" as its thought of in our everyday language, in this new category of mathematics the proper time of that very small thing Stephen taught us about changes its form.

Before the "beginning," that very small thing has a proper time which is Not comprised of nonstandard monads. Rather, for that very small thing, before the beginning there exists only "the present":

properTime = (thePresent, properTime), or

properTime = (thePresent, (thePresent, (thePresent, .... properTime)...)

In this equation, only the present exists and the past and the future do not yet exist.

In terms of this new category of mathematics, when time "begins," the present in this model is pulled apart somehow to create the past and the future:

moment = (nonstandardPast, standardPresent, nonstandardFuture)

I'm not aware of another category of mathematics that supports thinking about "the beginning" in this way-- that it is the creation of the past and the future from the present.

The ancients like Parmenides may have been describing a way to Feel such a state. But it seems to me there is no other category of mathematics available to Think about the beginning of time in this way.

By the way, if that very small thing near "the beginning" of the Universe actually works like this, then it might be equivalent to Roger Penrose's "cyclical Universe"-- at "the beginning" of the Universe, the proper time of that very small things pulls apart the present to create the past and the future.

While at "the end" of a Universe, the past and future of proper time disappear into the present.

Repeat.

To emphasize:

That the present always exists in a proper time, but the past and the future are always created, then destroyed, solves the problem of the physical constants in the Universe being so special that their probability of being as they are is close to infinitesimal.

As long as the probability of the constants being the way they are in order to support life in the Universe is finite-- no matter how small-- in a cyclically infinite Universe where the present always exists, but the future and the past are always created then destroyed, the physical constants being the way they are is guaranteed to happen-- no matter how small the probability.

In fact, when the present always exists in a proper time but the past and future are always created then destroyed, there will be an infinite number of Universes where life exists-- no matter how close to infinitesimal the chances of life existing in the Universe may be.

The Infinite Stream of Universes

theEnergySingularity = (Universe, theEnergySingularity)

Substituting on the RHS of the equation produces:

theEnergySingularity = (Universe, (Universe, (Universe, (Universe, (Universe, ... theEnergySingularity)...)

Which is the mathematical description of an infinite stream of Universes.

Assuming both scientific knowledge and personal knowledge, theEnergySingularity, as in the above equation, may be impossible to know scientifically.

But excedingly rarely, it seems like some of the ancients (like Parmenides) may have known theEnergySingularity, as in the above equation, through personal knowledge--

"...it is complete on every side, like the mass of a rounded sphere,
equally poised from the centre in every direction;

for it cannot be greater
or smaller in one place than in another.


For there is no "nothing" that could keep it from reaching
out..."

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Parmenides

it could be true a solar sail works because there is not conservation of energy momentum and angular momentum Kurt Stocklmeir

Raman scattering can influence em drive - Stokes scattering and anti Stokes scattering - front and back of resonator different temperature - different materials can be used - momentum of photon bouncing off front and back partly depends on Raman scattering Kurt Stocklmeir

A conjecture: The equation for proper time in terms of coordinate time is an infomorphism from the world of particles into the world of fields. The infomorphism initializes at the very beginning of a universe, bringing the field(s) into existence.

Stephen Hawking popularly wrote about a very small thing at the beginning of the Universe. The conjecture here is that this very small thing had a proper time. And from that proper time, emerge the fields.

By analogy, Ramanujan conveyed the feeling that each of his equations was "a thought of God."

In the terms I used in my essay on fundamentals (elsewhere on this site), this might be like Helen Keller's description of her first thought, "w-a-t-e-r."

There I used non-wellfounded sets to express what Helen described about what happened to her:

Before her first thought, it was:

self = (self)

And after her first thought, it was:

self = (thinking, self)

and then, the beginning of her stream of thinking:

self = (thinking, (thinking, (thinking...self)...)

If the field equations are actually as Ramanujan described-- "thoughts of god"-- then something similar describes the emergence of the field equations in a universe.

Before the first field equation holds:

Universe = (Universe)

After the first field equation begins to hold:

Universe = (fieldEquation, Universe)

And then:

Universe = (fieldEquation, (fieldEquation, (fieldEquation...(Universe)...)

Or in other words, the countless paths in Feynman diagrams.

Perhaps as Ramanujan might have written it:

God = (thinking, God)

Example: "System," or "space-time"-- which is more "fundamental"?

By "system" I mean the distributed system in Barwise and Seligman's Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.

Space-time isn't necessary for a distributed system-- just that the parts of the system carry information about each other. This kind of system is more fundamental than space time.

So in the previous conjecture, there can be a system of particles before space-time (and for example, a black hole) exists.

Annihilation

"The word annihilation takes use informally for the interaction of two particles that are not mutual antiparticles - not charge conjugate. Some quantum numbers may then not sum to zero in the initial state, but conserve with the same totals in the final state. An example is the "annihilation" of a high-energy electron antineutrino with an electron to produce a Wв€'." Wikipedia

All my posts so far lead to this: I have a (perhaps) amusing toy model of antimatter.

I am not a physicist but have simply been enjoying posting and learning about this toy model on FQXI in the "alternative models" threads here.

In what follows I make an attempt to use this toy model to say something about annihilation. But I only get so far. A next step would be to review the Feynman diagrams, almost all of which I've seen seem to involve annihilation. There may be a text that could help me in this next step, but I don't know which one. So that would mean, to start, me thumbing through almost every relevant text. So in this "vacuum" of posting just for myself, seeing the text online and wondering if anyone but me is reading, I seem to have reached the end of productivity, if any. I would probably have to talk to somebody to get an idea about a next step.

Oh well. Here's what I've got so far on my own, in this very strange vacuum of posting to whom I know not:

***

To model annihilation, the first step in the toy model is to say that proper time is a "stream" using non-wellfounded sets. Time then goes in one direction only:

properTime = (moment, properTime)

Where

moment = (nonWellFoundedPast, thePresent, nonWellFoundedFuture)

"nonWellFoundedPast" and "nonWellFoundedFuture" comprise a "halo" of nonstandard infinitesimals (from nonstandard analysis) around the standard number for "thePresent." Each is then infinitely close to thePresent, but on different sides.

To describe anitmatter:

First-- for matter, thePresent must be the standard number 0. "nonStandardPast" is then negative nonstandard infinitesimals "behind" thePresent while "nonStandardFuture" is positive nonstandard infinitesimals "in front of" the Present.

Antimatter would be a particle traveling backward in time, so in the opposite direction, its nonstandardPast comprises Positive nonstandard infinitesimals "in back of" thePresent while the nonstandardFuture comprises Negative nonstandard infinitesimals "in front of" thePresent.

At first, a kind of set intersection seems to describes matter-antimatter annihilation.

The intersection of the nonstandardFutures of matter and antimatter is the empty set, because the former comprises Positive nonstandard infinitesimals while the latter comprises Negative nonstandard infinitesimals, whose set intersection is empty. Correspondingly for the intersection of nonstandardPasts.

However, intersections of thePresent for matter and anitmatter yields, again, 0.

Is this a toy description of a photon?

Zero then describes a constant present, which at our level of human beings we feel as the constant "now."

There is a perhaps troubling prediction of this description: any antimatter particle with a proper time, as above, will annihilate any matter particle with a proper time!

But does anything like that happen?

This is where I would have to review the relevant Feynman diagrams. Because the set intersection that I've started with doesn't help me with the quote From Wikipedia, above, with which I began this post. So very probably--

goodby : )

Mike Holden,

Interesting observation, that "The laws of gravitation (value of G) may well have changed over time. This makes the evolution of the Universe more complicated but opens up more interesting possibilities.

The mass of the universe may have increased over time too. "

The Universe is cyclic in mass and time. That is, a fundamental equation in the form of Euler's eqn, when evaluated at time=now(+/- 100s of years) yields GR, with an imaginary Temporal Curvature term. Of course temporal curvature is imaginary, it is 'out of the 3-space' we exist in.

Wayne

I think the STOE is the best candidate for a Theory of Everything. See:

https://www.vixrapedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything_(STOE)

This model corresponds (includes ) both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

It explains several cosmological mysteries including Dark Matter, Dark Energy, discete redshift, asymetric rotation curves, etc.

It has predicted (in 2006) 3 observation later found to be true (in 2009 and 2011) about the pioneer anomaly.

It offered a model of light which predicted (before the experiment was done) 2 outcomes of diffraction experiments that rejects all wave and wave-particle models of light.

It predicted the outcome of an experiment that rejected the Biot-Savart Law of magnetostaics.

Its principles offers insight into life and societies.

there is a lot of gas between galaxies - there are a lot of small galaxies around big galaxies - gas between galaxies can change orbits of stars that are part of a small galaxy where it looks like there is dark matter in the small galaxy but there is not any dark matter Kurt Stocklmeir

gravity associated with gas and gas running into stars can change orbit of stars

Kurt Stocklmeir

time and space can have torsion - spinning gravity waves are torsion waves - there can be a vortex of gravity waves - gravity waves move at an almost infinite speed - if gravity waves move at the speed of light they could orbit a star a lot like a black hole - em drive at back of resonator meta material that creates negative radiation pressure - there are a lot of things that can be used to create negative radiation pressure - any of these things can be used at back of resonator - this breaks all laws of Newton - there is not conservation of energy momentum and angular momentum Kurt Stocklmeir