ADDENDA TO HD8 & VHC.
This paper contains a medley of items in support of the HD8 and VHC hypotheses.
a) Leptoquarks and Neutron Stars?
According to conventional theory, the matter inside sufficiently massive stars will eventually undergo collapse to neutronium, a state of matter in which only neutrons exist. To a simple approximation, the electrons fuse with the protons to form neutrons. In reality one of the up quarks in the proton (duu) changes into a down quark to make a neutron (ddu) and emits a W+ boson. The W+ boson then decays into a neutrino and a positron. The positron then annihilates an electron. This reaction constitutes the reverse of the easily observable reaction of neutron decay seen in free neutrons or in radioactive decay, where a neutron breaks down to form a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.
Conventional theory assumes that neutrons cannot resist an indefinite increase of pressure inside of sufficiently heavy neutron stars, and that they must eventually collapse into each other creating matter of unlimited density that should form the basis of black holes or singularities.
Because neutrons lack electric charges we cannot accelerate them in particle machines and crash them together to see what happens. However H6D allows the formation of leptoquark bosons. Conditions of very high pressure favour the production of energy particles over that of matter particles. Leptoquarks would have very high energies and very short lifetimes but they would have extremely high velocities, which would add a relativistic extension to their lifetimes.
If letptoquark bosons can survive long enough to escape the surface of a neutron star then they will effectively remove mass from the star and prevent further collapse. Outside of the star, the leptoquarks will revert to the ground state of protons and electrons and neutrinos, returning these particles into deep space at high speeds.
Leptoquarks may already have been detected in proton-positron collisions in several particle accelerators.
Neutron stars would provide ideal birthplaces for leptoquarks. Both protons and neutrons provide a source of quarks, neutron decay liberates antineutrinos, and reverse neutron decay liberates positrons. Gravitational compression supplies titanic collision energies.
Protons flying away from leptoquark decay debris may account for the fantastically energetic cosmic rays, which occasionally strike our planet�s atmosphere.
If leptoquarks can form in neutron stars and escape from them, then black holes and singularities may not have to form at all. The supermassive objects at the centers of many galaxies may consist of giant neutron stars, not black holes.
As experimental, observational, and theoretical evidence in favour of a finite and unbounded universe with 3 dimensions of time comes in, the highlights will appear below.
- John Anderson's team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Pasadena report that the space probes Pioneer 10 & 11, Ulysses, and Galileo all exhibit an unexplained deceleration of the order of 10^-11 m/s^2 , possibly attributable to an anomalous gravitational effect of the sun. However this figure seems highly suggestive of the value of GM/L^2, where M and L represent the mass and length of the universe. In the HD8 hypothesis such a Machian deceleration explains cosmic redshifts as a function of distance rather than as a function of recession velocity. It seems increasingly unlikely that we inhabit an expanding universe or that a big bang occurred.
- If the universe really did begin with a cataclysmic big bang some 13.4 odd billion years ago, then light now reaching us from 10 or so billion light years away should show only the early stages of galaxy formation in progress. However pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope actually show fully formed galaxies that look broadly similar to local ones. This does not fit into the big bang scenario at all, but it does confirm the hypothesis advanced in these pages that we inhabit a finite but unbounded universe that will appear broadly the some on the large scale from all points in space and time within it.
- Spectral analysis of radiation from distant quasars caught by the Hubble telescope indicates that the intergalactic voids contain a mass of ionised hydrogen similar to the total mass of all the galaxies themselves. (Astrophysical Journal Letters vol.534, pL1). This appears to confirm that the HD8 reverse neutron annihilation reaction, (2 gamma photons > 2 neutrons > 2 protons + 2 electrons + 2 electron antineutrinos), or a leptoquark decay, does in fact occur at some rate in deep space. Furthermore, the equivalence of the masses of galactic and intergalactic hydrogen suggests that they exist in dynamic equilibrium with each other and that the rate of neutron annihilation in highly compressed stellar or galactic cores precisely matches the rate of neutron creation in deep space.
- Type 3 Boson found?! Fokke de Boer & colleagues at The University of Frankfurt have reported the possible existence of a 9 MeV boson in the decay of beryllium-8 and carbon-12 nuclei. This boson appears to decay rapidly into an electron and a positron. Peter Paul & colleagues will soon attempt to confirm this result at the State University of New York at Brookhaven. "There is not a soul who expects this boson" says Peter Paul. I beg to disagree. HD8 predicts a boson with the configuration of S&2, C0, E@2, G@1, (in H6D notation), and a 9 MeV energy seems acceptable. I offer the name of 'Duon' for this particle, as it contains both plus and minus two units of electroweak spin/charge. More at Journal of Physics G (vol 27 p L29)
- No Higgs Boson? The latest analysis of data from CERN shows no sign of the Higgs up to 115 GeV. Many theorists and experimentalists now seriously doubt its existence. I did e-mail them about this several years ago but they spent 1.5bn dollars confirming it. New Scientist Dec 01.
- Fermilab reports no supersymmetry particles up to energies of 195 GeV. HD8 predicts that supersymmetry particles of the type predicted by superstring and 'brane' theories will not manifest at ANY energies, no matter how extreme. HD8 models bosons as having a particle/antiparticle configuration subject to the t-spin neutrality rule whereby no particle can have a 'naked' temporal spin axis. Physical Review Letters Jan. 02.
Thus for example, the graviton constitutes the neutrino-boson, a photino (photon-boson) cannot exist, the electron-boson already manifests as the Z boson, gluon-fermions (gluinos) cannot exist, and quark-bosons already manifest as mesons.
- Researchers at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory report that the 'missing' solar electron-neutrinos reappear in their detector now upgraded to detect muon-neutrinos and tauon-neutrinos, and they thus hypothesise that that neutrinos can fluctuate between the generations. HD8 suggests that collisions between neutrinos under conditions of high neutrino density leads to annihilations from which other generations of neutrino pairs can arise. A 'simple' fluctuation of single particles would require an as yet undiscovered force in nature.
- Supernova explosions in galaxies at high redshift take longer to complete their bursts than those at lower redshifts. Big bang theorists have interpreted this as confirmation of the hypothesis that a stretching of spacetime itself underlies the expansion of the universe following a big bang. However an application of either the special or general relativistc principles of time dilation to the data shows that the positive spacetime curvature of a static hypersphere will create exactly the same effect. See The Expansion Illusion and Singularity or Hypersphere.
- Dark Galaxies. Increasing observational evidence keeps coming in for the existence of so called ‘dark galaxies’. These consist of vast clouds of hydrogen sufficient to form many millions of stars, but they have not yet done so. As they emit little light, such galaxies remain difficult to locate, but some cosmologists suspect that they may well outnumber galaxies where stars have formed and ignited.
Conventional cosmology cannot easily explain why dark galaxies have failed to ignite, except perhaps by recourse to theoretical contortions involving the wrong kind or the wrong mix of dark matter.
In the HD8 hypothesis of a universe finite and unbounded in space and time one would expect an unlimited number of generations of galaxies, as the cosmic material continually recycles itself, rather than the single generation of galaxies that the big bang hypothesis implies. In the H6D universe one would expect exactly what the observations seem to show now, galaxies of all ages all over the place.
c) Towards a theory of Everything?
Various combinations of G, the gravitational constant, h, Planck's constant, and c, lightspeed, yield the fundamental planck units of energy, time, mass, & length, and these have the following relationship: -
Now the simple substitution of another constant in place of h in the formulae of the Planck quantities yields the energy, time, mass, and length of the entire universe.
The letter 'u' suggests itself for this new 'universal' constant, as it lies on the opposite side to h on the Roman alphabet arranged in a circle.
Thus (uc^5/G)^1/2 gives the energy of the universe, (Gu/c^5)^1/2 gives its 'time', (uc/G)^1/2 gives its mass, and (Gu/c^3)^1/2 gives its length (hyperspherical radius). These values agree with observation. It means that all the values for the universe as a whole have a value 10^60 times greater than the planck values.
Using either h or u we obtain values of Planck mass/Planck length, or Mass of universe/Length of universe, which both satisfy the equation
that describes a black hole. No other types of black hole probably exist apart from the universe itself and the individual fundamental quanta within it.
Interestingly, the very large number, 10^120, corresponds exactly to the magnitude of the error obtained in trying to calculate the effects of the quantum vacuum on the entire universe. The most spectacular error so far in theoretical physics!
How astonishing that the same formulae describe both the smallest and the largest phenomena. 'As above, so below'...... as Hermes Trismegistus apparently wrote upon his emerald tablet.
Now in an expanding universe it would seem a fantastic and non-believable coincidence that (Gu/c^5)^1/2 should just happen to give the so called 'age' of the universe. It would mean that humanity just happened to appear in the only epoch when the equation holds true. It seems much more likely that (Gu/c^5)^1/2 must represent the temporal horizon of the universe, and that this horizon has the same 'size' at all points in time. Observations of the light from distant galaxies indicates that the fundamental constants cannot have varied enough to balance the equation when, if at some point the universe had been say, half as 'old' as it looks now.
d) The Pentaquark?
According to the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics, quarks have a quality called somewhat arbitrarily, ‘colour’. This colour comes in three varieties designated red, green, and blue because by analogy to the mixing of light colours, red, green, and blue light combine to make white light and this models the constraint that quarks can only combine to form ‘colour neutral’ combinations. Note that quarks do not actually have colours in the optical sense, the concept of colour in quarks merely gives us a way of describing a property that they have which does not correspond to anything in our sensorium.
Thus we only observe quark triplets called baryons where each quark carries a different colour to give an overall ‘white’ or neutral effect, or quark doublets called mesons where a coloured quark pairs with an antiquark bearing the corresponding anticolour to again give overall colour neutrality.
For some time theorists have wondered if larger quark combinations could exist. Theoretically a pentaquark could consist of a red, a green, and a blue quark bound to up with a quark/antiquark pair consisting of a quark of any colour and a second generation antiquark. However such a simple triplet/doublet combination would in theory have a rather high energy and hence a low stability, giving it a very short half life.
Increasing experimental evidence has emerged for the existence of a so called theta pentaquark consisting of two down quarks, two up quarks and an antistrange quark. This probably represents the lowest energy pentaquark and more may follow at higher energies. The theta pentaquark has a considerably lower energy than one would expect if it consisted of a simple triplet- doublet configuration.
This suggests that some phenomenon not seen with other quark combinations acts to stabilize the theta pentaquark configuration and lower its energy and extend its half life.
Theorists have speculated that the anticolour of the antiquark somehow acts to have the same effect as the two other colours in the sense that if R+B+G = 0, then B +G = -R.
Thus instead of the pentaquark consisting of a colour neutral configuration of an RBG triplet bound to (say) an R/-R doublet, it may consist of a red antiquark supplying a BG effect to neutralize the RGRB colour of the other four quarks.
Now the HD8 hypothesis asserts that the colour force arises from particle spin about the three orthogonal axes of time and spins about three orthogonal axes have exactly the property that an antispin about one axis has the same effect as spins about the other two.
One can easily verify this by rotating a cube about its three orthogonal axes. (Start with 180 degree rotations for simplicity). Designate the three axes R, B, and G. The operation +R, +B, +G has no overall effect, it returns the cube to its original position. The operation +G, +B, however, has the same effect as –R.
Indeed, because of the symmetry of a cube, one can readily verify that any antispin has the same effect as the other two spins, and conversely that any spin has the same effect as the two other antispins.
I interpret this as additional evidence that the colour force carried by quarks arises from spins about the three mutually orthogonal axes of time.
e) The Poincare Conjecture
It now seems likely that the Russian mathematician Perelman has proved the Poincare Conjecture that the 3-sphere constitutes the simplest compact (finite and unbounded) topology in 3-manifold geometry. He well deserves the substantial prize for cracking this hideous problem formally, even though the conclusion has always appeared intuitively obvious.
Now one would expect the universe to adopt the simplest possible geometry and topology.
Thus if we inhabit a finite and unbounded universe it probably exists as a 3-sphere, or what some theorists have called an hypersphere.
Some confusion of terminology exists here. Hyperspheres of arbitrarily high dimensionality have been modeled mathematically, but the three dimensional ‘surface’ which constitutes the 3-sphere remains the simplest type of hypersphere.
Conventionally we call the inside of a sphere a ‘ball’, and its surface has one less dimension. Thus for example, an ordinary 3-ball like the earth or a cricket ball has a 3 dimensional inside, and a 2 dimensional surface. So a 3-sphere will enclose a 4-ball.
However we need not worry too much, for the moment, about the hypothetical 4-ball which our universe may enclose because the extra dimensionality of the 4-ball does not necessarily imply a kind of ‘space’ which we can see or fly to. It may perhaps consist of some kind of imaginary time ’pseudospace’ where quantum probabilities evolve.
Now ordinary space itself obviously has roughly 3 dimensions. If you dispute ‘roughly’ then consider what would happen if you tried to build a tower several miles high using plumb-lines to make the walls vertical, the penthouse would end up wider than the basement, because the mass of the earth curves space. (It also curves time as well, workers on the top floor will get an imperceptibly longer tea break)
A finite but unbounded 3-dimensional space cannot have a perfectly Euclidian geometry. Euclidian geometries must have either an edge or they must extend to infinity. More complex topologies like that of the ‘hypercubic’ 3-torus* in a 3-manifold could still contain an approximately Euclidian geometry. (*Imagine a cube with connections between its opposite faces).
However the Poincare Conjecture suggests that we should apply Occam’s razor here and opt for the simplest possible explanation for the observations. I suspect that we will not observe the multiple images of distant galaxies and quasars that one might expect in any 3-manifold, because the small positive curvature of the universe will redshift to oblivion, light from beyond the antipode of a 3-sphere
In a 3-sphere of cosmic size, space will seem Euclidian at relatively small scales, say, within star systems, but on larger scales we should begin to notice that apparently Euclidian space does in fact have a small but measurable positive curvature.
Perhaps we should re-interpret galactic redshift and the diminution of optical magnitude of very distant supernovae as evidence of a small positive spacetime curvature and of an hyperspherical lensing effect.
f) Singularity or Hypersphere?
If the universe consists of an hypersphere with a positive spacetime curvature which manifests as the constant deceleration GM/L^2, then the General Relativistic (GR) effect of this deceleration will distort our picture of the mass, length, and time of objects at great distances. Alternatively we can consider the distortion in terms of the Special Relativistic (SR) effect that such a deceleration would have over the time of its application.
We can derive the distortion effect of distance from either the GR factor of GM/lc^2 or from the SR factor of v^2/c^2 because;
GM/lc^2 = v^2/c^2, because GM/l = v^2, so,
v^2/c^2 = A^2 t^2/c^2,
where A equals the Anderson acceleration GM/L^2,
then by substituting for A we obtain,
G^2 M^2 t^2/L^4 c^2,
then, as an hyperspherical universe has an orbital velocity of lightspeed,
we can substitute GM/L = c^2 twice, to obtain,
c^2 t^2 / L^2,
then, as ct = l , we can obtain,
So both GR and SR yield the same result: -
apparent mass, = mo/(1-l^2/L^2)^1/2
apparent length, = lo((1-l^2/L^2)^1/2)
apparent time, = to((1-l^2/L^2)^1/2)
where mo, lo, and to, equal the actual masses, lengths, and times.
Now as we observe objects close to the antipode distance, l tends towards L and
(1-l^2/L^2)^1/2 tends towards zero, so the apparent mass tends asymptotically towards infinity, the apparent length tends asymptotically towards zero and the apparent time tends asymptotically towards zero as well.
Thus the density apparently tends towards infinity and time seems to stop.
In other words we have an apparent ‘Spacetime Singularity’, such as that from which many theorists consider the big bang to have erupted.
So if we do inhabit an hypersphere and we fail to account for its small spacetime curvature, we will suffer from the illusion that it had a beginning in a singularity. In any other discipline, except apparently cosmology, the appearance of a singularity (an infinite quantity of anything) in your conclusions indicates that you have made a mistake!
g) The Higgs Boson
Einstein probably got it right about mass. The fantastic coincidence implicit in Newtonian mechanics, that inertial mass,
(F = ma)
just happens to always prove equivalent to gravitational mass,
F =G m1m2/d^2
thus ensuring that all objects fall at the same rate, strongly suggests that the gravitational and inertial components of mass share a deep equivalence.
Einstein’s general relativity describes mass as a curvature in spacetime. This accounts brilliantly for the gravitational aspect of mass but it does not say much about what causes the inertial aspect of mass. It does not incorporate Mach’s principle for example, which states that the inertia of a body arises through interaction with the whole of the rest of the universe. It remains difficult to imagine a test for Mach’s principle, yet easy to imagine that the curvature of a mass somehow interacts with the total curvatures of all other objects in the universe to create inertia.
Particle physicists desperately want to find a particle they call the Higgs Boson. According to the standard model this particle will prove the existence of what they call the Higgs field, which supposedly confers mass on all particles that exhibit mass.
Huge resources have already been deployed to catch the Higgs but without success. The particle physicists hope that the awesomely powerful Large Hadron Collider, will create and detect this particle.
The Higgs field supposedly confers mass by acting rather like a viscous fluid that resists the acceleration of objects through it. Thus it could account for the inertial aspect of mass, but it would not account for the gravitational aspect of mass. In particle physics terms, gravity should arise from the exchange of yet another particle called the graviton.
Unfortunately the graviton remains undetectable in principle on an individual basis because of its extreme smallness. Yet some hope remains that gravitational waves from cataclysmic events in the universe may someday register on our sensors.
The particle physics model of mass looks very inelegant compared to general relativity.
Particles cannot have a simple ‘mass charge’ in the same way that they carry simple multiples of electroweak or strong nuclear charges, because they show an enormous and not very systematic range of masses. Moreover, the particle model of mass separates gravity and inertia that GR so elegantly unites. Instead it seems to require again a fantastical coincidence in which mass carrying particles just happen to always interact with gravitons and the Higgs field in an exact fixed proportion to preserve equivalence.
The question of particle mediated verses geometric models of mass goes right to the heart of the problem that has confronted physics for over 70 years. Quantum Physics that models tiny phenomena at the atomic scale has a radically different paradigm to General Relativity that models huge phenomena like gravity on an astrophysical scale.
To date, none of the attempts to ‘quantise gravity’ has yielded any useful model in which gravity appears as a quantized force akin to the other quantised forces.
HD8 predicts that the Higgs particle does not exist, and it strongly suggests that no further truly fundamental particles exist with energies beyond the top quark because the existing suite of particles uses up all possible geometries for fundamental particles. We might see a top-antitop boson or meson but that really represents the limit.
A null result for the Higgs at the LHC could have several effects.
Theorists might find some way of adjusting their calculations yet again to redefine the energy of the Higgs particle as beyond the power of the mighty LHC.
The lack of a Higgs may provoke fresh attempts to quantise gravity by new methods.
The alternative possibility; that of ‘geometricating the quanta’ with extra dimensions, may at last receive the attention that it deserves.
Sufficient mass-energy density can curve space enough to close it and create a finite but unbounded volume of space that we can identify with the 3-sphere or Hypersphere. Nothing can leave such a volume of space but nothing in principle prevents anything from traveling an unlimited distance within it.
However H6D asserts that we inhabit a finite and unbounded universe in time as well as space. A spatially finite and unbounded universe implies the idea that one could in principle travel right around it and return to one’s point of spatial origin, albeit by a journey taking billions of years in a universe the size of ours.
Similarly, a temporally finite and unbounded universe implies the idea that one could in principle travel right round it and return to one’s point of temporal origin, albeit by a journey taking billions of miles in a universe the size of ours.
At a first glance the spatial return idea seems just about credible, but the temporal return idea seems to violate our most basic notions about time and causality. However if the universe rotates then it appears that this can happen without any apparent causality violation except that the universe then becomes the cause of itself.
The great mathematician and logician Kurt Godel, most famous for his notorious incompleteness theorem, also developed a solution to Einstein’s equations of general relativity for a rotating but non-expanding universe in which vast closed loops in time would exist.
Now one should not think of a rotating universe as some sort of a ball of stuff spinning in the void, for then one might justifiably ask with reference to what it rotates. Rather consider a universe undergoing some sort of internal motion with its parts revolving with respect to each other, rather like a lump of dough kneading itself. Such a visualization remains particularly pertinent in the case of an hypersphere which has no centre anyway.
Such internal motion has the name of Vorticity rather than rotation as one would understand it for a ball (an ordinary 2-sphere). Vorticity implies that all points revolve around each other, no special point acts as the centre, and the universe remains isotropic and isomorphic on the large scale.
Now Godel came up with a very simple elegant and now rather neglected equation for the rotation that he calculated would naturally characterize any vast body including the universe:
He said that matter everywhere rotates relative to the compass of inertia with the angular velocity of 2(piKp)^1/2, or in more modern notation: -
W = 2(piGd)^1/2
Where W = Rotation rate or Vorticity
G = Newton’s gravitational constant
d = Density (mass over volume)
We can use Godel’s equation, W = 2(pi G d)^1/2, to demonstrate that an hyperspherical universe has a vorticity which depends only upon its 4-radius and lightspeed.
To do this we need to consider the 4-radius formulae for an hypersphere.
An hypersphere has a 4-radius which we will henceforth denote as R.
The antipode distance in an hypersphere equals simply pi R
The three dimensional volume of an hypersphere equals 2 pi^2 R^3. This three dimensional ‘surface’ constitutes the spatial universe.
So substituting the 3D volume in Godel’s equation we get: -
W = 2(pi GM / 2 pi^2 R^3)^1/2
Which reduces to: -
W = 2(GM / 2 pi R^3)^1/2
Squaring we get: -
W^2 = 4GM/2 pi R^3
W^2 = 2GM/ pi R^3
Now Godel’s equation incorporates the assumption that 2GM/L = c^2, for a universe with an escape velocity of lightspeed*, and as L = pi R, we can thus substitute c^2 for 2GM/pi R to give: -
W^2 = c^2 / R^2
And taking the square root we find that: -
W = c / R
However R does not constitute a ‘real’ physical distance in 3 dimensions so we have to multiply it by pi to give useful quantities such as L (or C/2), yielding: -
W / pi = c / L = 1/T for a ‘revolution’ of C/2
Now angular velocity, W = 2 pi f, where f equals frequency, so W / pi = 2f, 2f = 1 / T,
So f = 1 / 2T
The universe thus vorticitates with a periodicity of 2T.
This equates to a period of about 22 billion years in H6D.
Thus an hyperspherical universe must have a vorticity of exactly unity with respect to the ‘length’ of its temporal horizon, or half of its circumference, and furthermore we can think of it as vorticitating or ‘rotating’ about its 4-radius rather than any axis in the observable 3 spatial dimensions.
We cannot actually observe the hidden 4-radius in our universe but we can deduce it from the curvature of spacetime. Its presence defines the curvature in such a way that the antipode distance L equals half the circumference C/2, of the universe.
R pi = L = C / 2
(* Note that in H6D the universe has an orbital velocity of lightspeed and a theoretical escape velocity of 2^1/2 c, and GM / L = c^2.)
The physical meaning of R, the 4-radius of the universe, remains an intriguing question. It must exist if the universe exists as an hypersphere, and it constitutes a sort of 4th spatial dimension that lies somehow orthogonal (at right angles) to all points in space, although we cannot readily visualize this. One might speculate that as all points in space lie connected by a radial distance pi times shorter than normal space, then FTL travel could possibly occur if we could find a way of pointing a ship at right angles to 3D space.
So how does this rotation/vorticity of the universe create closed loops in time?
Light and matter can only propagate forward in time at or below lightspeed and thus one does not normally expect to experience them flying off and then eventually find them approaching from behind in space or time.
One can see that in space with a positive curvature, an ejected object or light beam can in principle eventually approach form the opposite direction in which one dispatched it having traveled once around the universe because its direction of forward travel eventually gets dragged round by the gravitational curvature of the universe.
In a similar sort of way the rotation/vorticity of the universe drags the temporal direction of travel around as well so that the object or light beam eventually seems to return from the past to the time of its origin.
I do not believe that this will lead to any kind of simple causality violation because it seems that no actual intelligible signal could survive an 11 billion year journey back to its origin in time.
It does however raise the startling possibility that the universe causes itself to exist in a certain sense, from within the perspective of the huge 22 billion year closed loop of time, nothing can have a meaningful linear age greater than this and nothing fundamental can have any less of an age, although structures like galaxies, stars, planets and their inhabitants obviously come and go. Some structures such as stars and galaxies do seem to have retained some sort of coherent structure for more than 22 billion years, this does not mean that they have a greater age than the universe, the universe does not have a real linear age, such structures have merely survived more than one revolution.
This does not mean that every 22 billion years exactly the same things happen again, unless one tries to race around the universe at lightspeed to get back to one’s departure point. It merely means that all the matter and energy around here in the local part of spacetime originates from stuff that existed here 11 billion years ago, and 11 billion years before that, ad infinitum, from the frame of reference of linear time. One could in theory send a radio signal off at lightspeed with a message to any civilization intercepting it to re-amplify it and rebroadcast it in the same general direction. If a continuous series of civilizations existed and cooperated in such a venture the signal should arrive from the opposite direction delayed only by the rebroadcast time. Sending a material object such as oneself in a spacecraft presents a rather more difficult problem. As no material object can quite reach lightspeed the spacecraft will have to travel a little slower, but getting it anywhere near lightspeed (and keeping it there against the Anderson deceleration) would require an impractical energy expenditure. A fast but sub-lightspeed trip would bring the craft back at some point in time after it had departed, but to a point in time perhaps apparently unreasonably soon after it had departed, if the craft traveled close to lightspeed. On board relativistic time dilation would make the journey seem as short as the apparent jump into the future for the inhabitants of the craft, but I wouldn’t volunteer for such a trip due to all the dust and radiation in space which one really does not want to plough through at relativistic velocities.
A rotating/vorticising universe does not require an origin in time, nor does it have an origin in the sort of linear time that we measure the ages of structures with. From the reference frame within it, time has no boundaries, although no temporal separation in excess of 11 billon years has any meaning.
Classical mysticism seems to have intuited this idea with the symbol of Ouroboros, the serpent shown as swallowing its own tail or in a complementary sense, spewing itself out of its own mouth. Contemporary science has attempted various ‘bootstrap’ models in which the universe pulls itself up by its own bootstraps as it were, but these have fallen temporarily out of favor due to the current popularity of the big bang theory.
The 22 billion years represents the minimum size of time loop that the universe as a whole naturally provides. We could in theory make smaller loops by artificially spinning very large lumps of matter extremely fast to drag the axes of spacetime around with them and then attempt hazardous fly-bys to try to get back to when we started out, thus perhaps duplicating ourselves in the process by converting rotational energy into mass, but I suspect that tidal forces would disorder the process and merely result in the creation of amorphous sludge or a blast of fundamental particles.
Some Sufi mystics, notably Rumi, considered that everything exists in a spinning state.
Heavenly bodies usually have both a spin and also an orbit around another body. We now know that all the particles which comprise light and atoms also have a spin. If the universe itself also has a spin then it may have a finite and unbounded nature in both space and time.
If the universe does exist as a sort of closed ‘curve’ in both space and time, with the spatial curvature caused by its own gravity and the temporal curvature caused by its own rotation, then from within it, questions about its origin become meaningless and merely betray mistaken preconceptions, rather like asking what kind of cheese comprises the moon.
If one can conceive of anything then one can conceive of its absence, if one can conceive of a universe finite and unbounded in space and time then one can perhaps conceive of something outside of that time and space. However to do this one often has to develop a Privative concept. Death for example does not exist as a phenomenon in itself replete with cloak and scythe, it merely represents the absence or end of life.
As humans we seem to have this conceptual habit of supposing that ‘Nothing’ seems somehow more fundamental than ‘Something’. I can see no reason for this, everything that we observe has plainly come from something else.
I see no reason to imagine Non-existence as any more fundamental than Existence.
The universe does not have to come from anywhere but itself if it exists a finite and unbounded structure in space and time, and if no other space or time or anything else exists outside of it.
i) Three Dimensional Time?
Space Space exhibits no preferred direction. Although local conditions may favour conventions such as up or down, Australia's up does not correspond to Belgium's, and left or right depends entirely on personal orientation. Some antipodeans prefer world maps or globes with their own continent in the local up direction. Similarly the universe does not favour any particular direction in any of its three temporal directions, all apparent distinctions arise from our attempts to impose convenient conventions. Such conventions, however, seem to obscure the full enormity of what surrounds us.
Classical Newtonian style time, modified only slightly by relativity, consists of only a single dimensional line along which the spatial universe progresses from vaguely remembered or approximately recorded points in the past to uncertain or vaguely calculable points in the future; whilst causal determinism plays its largely inscrutable hand, and entropy inexorably increases.
Stephen Hawking brilliantly observed that entropy increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which entropy increases. We simply adopt the entropy increasing direction as our temporal reference direction, and so we do not usually notice the orthogonal components of time. Entropy (or increasing disorder) defines our forward direction in time, so order propagates backward through time, thus we can see why the theory of causality works so well in reverse but not so well forwards. We can always find a reason for something that has happened but we can rarely predict precisely what will happen. Things often happen for insufficient causes in forward mode, but afterwards we often invent sufficient causes and reasons.
Quantum mechanical time, and indeed the time scheme of any system involving probability calculus which does not assume crypto-determinism, suggests that we should not regard any moment of the past or future as a definite point where only one set of events did or will occur, but rather as a two dimensional plane of possibility.
Official causal classical dogma notwithstanding, most people believe in an indeterminate future, not entirely specified by the conditions of the present. Few however, can imagine or accept the idea of an equally indeterminate past, although quantum physics and certain parapsychological results specify exactly that.
We lack any kind of sense organ or instrument that can 'see' reliably across time in the way that we can see across three dimensional space, because the space to time ratio has such an enormous value compared to our bodies. Thus whilst we can see quite a bit of three dimensional space around ourselves, we can only perceive time as a series of point like moments. We then string those points together by memory and expectation to produce an apparent line of one dimensional time, even though this contradicts our expectation that at least the future contains many possibilities.
If the universe actually 'moved' through a three rather than a one dimensional timescape then the line joining every part of recorded history would still seem one dimensional, but we would have to regard all those parts of the three dimensional temporal matrix which the universe probably did not, or probably will not visit, as making some contribution to the conditions at any observed moment. Such conditions arise directly from the non local and atemporal fields subtended by the particles that constitute all known forms of matter and energy. (See HD8 page) Thus in a sense, we can have the cake of parallel universes without suffering the indigestion attendant on trying to find a 'place' to put them, for they consist only of fundamental fields, rather than the particles which subtend them, 'feeling out' possible pasts and futures for the universe at any point.
Thus we can conceptualise the plane of probability lying orthogonally to the line of ordinary time extrapolated from classical considerations, with less profitable events lying further from the centre of the plane than more probable ones.
To make sense of this mathematically we have to use Minkowski space-time rather than Euclidean space. In Minkowski space-time, time appears as an imaginary form of space and enters the equation as ict where i equals the square root of minus one and we have to multiply temporal separations t, by c, lightspeed, the enormous ratio of space to time to put them both on the same scale. Then by a simple extension of Pythagorean geometry the separation between any two points in space-time appears as the square root of the spatial separation squared plus the square of ict. As a result, large spatial separations with small temporal separations appear as slightly reduced real spatial separations, whilst large temporal separations with small spatial separations appear as imaginary 'distances'. This seems a reasonable formulation when you consider that you cannot walk 'to' next Tuesday.
Now the two time dimensions which our arbitrary choice of one 'real' time dimension relegate to the plane of probability can now enter the equation as an imaginary form of imaginary time that we can accommodate by squaring the imaginary number i. By inserting the plane of imaginary time into the basic Pythagorean equation using axes designated a and b, we obtain:-
D=[S^2 + (ict)^2 + (i^2 ca)^2 + (i^2 cb)^2]^1/2
Where D equals the six dimensional space-time separation S = Spatial separation
Clearly, squaring out the square roots of minus one yields: -
D=[S^2 - (ct)^2 + (ca)^2 + (cb)^2]^1/2
Thus imaginary time separations (corresponding to probability) act rather like spatial separations. The further away in 'ordinary' time you 'look' from an event the more 'room' exists for alternative possibilities. We strongly suspect that field mediated quantum non local information exchange can take place along any nullpath and that what we can call magic occasionally uses a similar mechanism.
Three equivalent dimensions of time also cast a new perspective on entropy and the apparent thermodynamic arrow of time. The difficulty of unbreaking eggs arises because a broken egg has far more degrees of freedom (corresponding to more possibilities) than an unbroken one, at least in the short term. It seems unlikely that the time dimensions should possess any intrinsic favoured direction. It seems rather more likely that we simply make the convention that energy dissipative processes, (and that means everything in the local, but perhaps not the entire universe, see cosmology pages), mark the forward passage of time. Time itself does not 'flow', things around us just fall apart and we call increasing disintegration the passage of time. Similarly we do not somehow 'use up' space by moving through it. Although we can observe huge amounts of space we can only observe vanishingly small instants of time.
Time seems to exhibit the very 'compactification' used in extra-spatial dimensional theories to explain the apparent absence of extra dimensions in macroscopic reality. Now if time has three dimensions, the minimum quantum of time must manifest as a quantum scale 'temporal sphere' and events must have a temporal as well as a spatial diameter. If events occur 'everywhen' within the volume of the a moment, rather as spherical objects fill their entire diameters, then we can explain the probabilistic behaviour of matter, without recourse to the multiple universe hypothesis. Quantum scale multiple universes, of a limited sort, exist within a 'spherical' moment, but macroscopically this manifests only as a probabilistic behaviour.
Thus the diameter of the time quantum leads not only to an indeterminate future, but can also provide a model which makes sense of the apparently multiple pasts of events. In particular the double slit experiment and the sum over history's formalism, (Feynman) now suggest that events in the past have contributed to the observed behaviour of the present from across their entire temporal diameters.
The extreme brevity of observable moments of time has prevented us from noticing their volume, on the quantum scale however, where particles spatial diameters approximate to their temporal diameters, the temporal volume of the quantum of time has obvious effects as described by Schroedinger and Heisenberg.
j) Anti-matter and symmetry?
We must remember that an hypersphere vorticitates with a rotation of all 3 spatial dimensions simultaneously about the 4-radius curvature orthogonal to normal space.
Thus after one half rotation any object to the left of an observer will have moved to the observer’s right. Objects that were in front will have moved behind, and objects that were below will appear above. In a universe of this size, this process will take about 11 billion years.
Now consider the effect of taking a six sided dice and repainting it so that the one swaps with the six, the five with the two and the three with the four. The resulting dice becomes a mirror image of the one you started with. If we arbitrarily designate the start dice as right handed then the resulting dice has become left handed. Thus if this universe consists of a vorticitating hypersphere then it will change parity (handedness) every 11 billion years.
If, as I suspect, the 3 dimensions of time arise from the rotation of the 3 spatial dimensions about the 4-radius then we confront the intriguing possibility that the strong nuclear and electroweak charges on matter may also reverse every 11 billion years as well, if they do indeed arise from temporal spins as HD8 suggests.
Thus we would inhabit a universe with an unbroken CPT symmetry. (Charge-Parity-Time Symmetry). The universe would oscillate between a matter and an antimatter composition every 11 billion years. The minor asymmetries which we notice now would all work the other way round in another half rotations time, but otherwise we would not notice anything particularly strange, if we live long enough to see it.
The ‘Antimatter’ universe.
The existence of Antimatter really depends on the presence of anti-colour charge, because both negative and positive electroweak charge occurs in both Matter and Antimatter.
The universe energetically favours a situation where all the colour charges have the same sign and the opposite colour charge only occurs as a result of occasional violent natural or sometimes man made particle par production reactions, but the opposite colour charges produced rapidly annihilate and disappear.
So at ANY time the universe consists overwhelmingly of material with a single sign of colour charge which the inhabitants can call matter.
Now any observer at any point in the vorticitation cycle can conclude that because of vorticitation other observers 11 billion years away in the past or future will effectively live in a universe of opposite colour charge to theirs.
The only difference such past and future observers should observe consists of certain obscure asymmetries will work the other way around. Now these asymmetries only appear as statistical deviations anyway, things like neutral Kaon decay or Beta-meson decay for example. If you actually hung around for 11 billion years you would notice a gradual shift in the asymmetry from one direction to the other.
From any point of observation one would expect an exactly opposite asymmetry at 11 billion years, but the interesting question remains will the asymmetry become greater or lesser at the 'halfway' point or at some time before or after that, because in some sense the time of maximum asymmetry may represent something special because both it and its temporal antipode would represent a sort of midday and midnight in the vorticitation cycle.