HyperGeometrical Cosmology

[ny2292000]

(Please click this link below to go to the Hypergoemetrical Universe blog)

The Reality of Space


A reader asked me this nice and deep question:

I'm an idealist/figmentalist and always wonder where people such as yourself (scientists) think that the space for such expansion came from and also what sort of container is it all in, or do you think of the space your expansion requires is a natural state of reality or non-reality?

Remember if you use the word Infinity (or the sideways 8) you are using a ? and not really proposing anything.

I will paraphrase it to make sure I get all the meaning of it..>:)

The first sentence has to do with the old age question about what is beyond the Universe. In the past, this question had to do with a static universe. My theory proposes a topology in which theUniverse is embedded within a 4D spatial manifold and expanding at the speed of light. The visible Universe lies within the traveling hypersurface.

Under these circumstances, my answer that beyond the visible universe lies more universe (3D spatial Universe) should be complemented with answering the question on what is beyond the expanding 4D spatial shockwave Universe.

Call me silly, but I take an agnostic position with respect to that. It is necessary to know that there is unadulterated 4D space, that is, nothing that dephases the dilaton field originating in our 3D hypersphere. It is easy to be an agnostic with respect to things that you cannot know. In my theory we travel at the speed of light outwards (radially) and if someday we hit some other expanding Universe, you can kiss yourself goodbye.

In my Cosmogenesis theory, I proposed that the 4D spatial manifold would come out of a dimensional transition (zeroD to 4D). Some said that anything a mathematician can concoct has a physical equivalent. I don't believe that. I believe that some of the things we can mathematically construct have physical equivalents. For example, it is easy to imagine fluctuations of zero in one dimension. Just pick up a ruler and for each point with a positive coordinate, there is another with a negative coordinate. In 3D or 4D things are equally easy, just pick up a 3D or 4D vector and its additive complement. For each vector/antivector the sum is zero, thus any vector/antivector can be considered a fluctuation of Zero in 1D, 3D or 4D.

There is a small difficulty in thinking in terms of zero spatial dimensions. In zero dimensions, a vector doesn't point in any direction, it is just a number. Here the vector/antivector paradigm is replaced by a number and minus that number.
In my Cosmogenesis theory I considered that the initial fluctuation was accompanied by a 0D to 4D dimensional transition which provided the required entropic space for the Universe to unfold.

This is the subset of all mathematical constructs which I decided to give a physical meaning in my Cosmogenesis Theory. It is not the last word, it is not the first word...:) It is just an intellectually satisfying model.

The dimensional transition associated with the beginning of the Universe make the Universe unique during its existence. Hence I don't expect this Universe to collide with another nor the 3D Universe hypersurface to be just one out of many traveling Universes.
In my model, all matter will eventuall relax or recombine and the dimensional transition will reverse and another cycle will start.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The second clause is a statement, bold but meaningless, in the sense that proposing that the Universe is infinite or that the Universe is asymptotically large (unknown dimension) has been done before. It is true, it has been proposed before that the Universe is infinite.

On that occasion, the infinite Universe was a 3D Universe full of stuff..:) In my case, the infinite universe is an empty manifold where our 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe is embedded. Our 3D hypersurface is limited and finite.

These are not insignificant differences that makes my infinite different from the Infinite of Nicolas de Cues. Not all 8 laying down are equal.

The last point is about the Reality of Space. In my theory everything we hold near and dear and real is made up of space. If you consider yourself real, then space is real.
Non-reality is just what one has in one's mind. I am the oposite of the solipstistic thinker. The only thing that has an intrinsic reality is outside your perception/mind. What we perceive is at best a poor representation of reality.

If you ever observed a stroboscopic light iluminating a vibrating/rotating object, you know that your percetion of reality can be easily tricked.

The fundamental dilator follows the same paradigm to fool all mankind for eons into thinking that a Proton is a Proton and an Electron is an Electron, when they are just two phases of the same shape shifting rotating metric deformation coherence...:)

Of course, the support for that conclusion is the Unification Equations for Gravity and Electromagnetism in my papers.

Cheers,

MP

[ny2292000]

(Please click this link to go to the Hypergoemetrical Universe blog)

The Reality of Space


A reader asked me this nice and deep question:

I'm an idealist/figmentalist and always wonder where people such as yourself (scientists) think that the space for such expansion came from and also what sort of container is it all in, or do you think of the space your expansion requires is a natural state of reality or non-reality?

Remember if you use the word Infinity (or the sideways 8) you are using a ? and not really proposing anything.

I will paraphrase it to make sure I get all the meaning of it..>:)

The first sentence has to do with the old age question about what is beyond the Universe. In the past, this question had to do with a static universe. My theory proposes a topology in which theUniverse is embedded within a 4D spatial manifold and expanding at the speed of light. The visible Universe lies within the traveling hypersurface.

Under these circumstances, my answer that beyond the visible universe lies more universe (3D spatial Universe) should be complemented with answering the question on what is beyond the expanding 4D spatial shockwave Universe.

Call me silly, but I take an agnostic position with respect to that. It is necessary to know that there is unadulterated 4D space, that is, nothing that dephases the dilaton field originating in our 3D hypersphere. It is easy to be an agnostic with respect to things that you cannot know. In my theory we travel at the speed of light outwards (radially) and if someday we hit some other expanding Universe, you can kiss yourself goodbye.

In my Cosmogenesis theory, I proposed that the 4D spatial manifold would come out of a dimensional transition (zeroD to 4D). Some said that anything a mathematician can concoct has a physical equivalent. I don't believe that. I believe that some of the things we can mathematically construct have physical equivalents. For example, it is easy to imagine fluctuations of zero in one dimension. Just pick up a ruler and for each point with a positive coordinate, there is another with a negative coordinate. In 3D or 4D things are equally easy, just pick up a 3D or 4D vector and its additive complement. For each vector/antivector the sum is zero, thus any vector/antivector can be considered a fluctuation of Zero in 1D, 3D or 4D.

There is a small difficulty in thinking in terms of zero spatial dimensions. In zero dimensions, a vector doesn't point in any direction, it is just a number. Here the vector/antivector paradigm is replaced by a number and minus that number.
In my Cosmogenesis theory I considered that the initial fluctuation was accompanied by a 0D to 4D dimensional transition which provided the required entropic space for the Universe to unfold.

This is the subset of all mathematical constructs which I decided to give a physical meaning in my Cosmogenesis Theory. It is not the last word, it is not the first word...:) It is just an intellectually satisfying model.

The dimensional transition associated with the beginning of the Universe make the Universe unique during its existence. Hence I don't expect this Universe to collide with another nor the 3D Universe hypersurface to be just one out of many traveling Universes.
In my model, all matter will eventuall relax or recombine and the dimensional transition will reverse and another cycle will start.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The second clause is a statement, bold but meaningless, in the sense that proposing that the Universe is infinite or that the Universe is asymptotically large (unknown dimension) has been done before. It is true, it has been proposed before that the Universe is infinite.

On that occasion, the infinite Universe was a 3D Universe full of stuff..:) In my case, the infinite universe is an empty manifold where our 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe is embedded. Our 3D hypersurface is limited and finite.

These are not insignificant differences that makes my infinite different from the Infinite of Nicolas de Cues. Not all 8 laying down are equal.

The last point is about the Reality of Space. In my theory everything we hold near and dear and real is made up of space. If you consider yourself real, then space is real.
Non-reality is just what one has in one's mind. I am the oposite of the solipstistic thinker. The only thing that has an intrinsic reality is outside your perception/mind. What we perceive is at best a poor representation of reality.

If you ever observed a stroboscopic light iluminating a vibrating/rotating object, you know that your percetion of reality can be easily tricked.

The fundamental dilator follows the same paradigm to fool all mankind for eons into thinking that a Proton is a Proton and an Electron is an Electron, when they are just two phases of the same shape shifting rotating metric deformation coherence...:)

Of course, the support for that conclusion is the Unification Equations for Gravity and Electromagnetism in my papers.

Cheers,

MP

[Rufus]

MP

Thankyou for your thoughtful reply. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I really can't understand how you can espouse such an incomplete theory.

Try to think of your light speed expanding universe as a point in the middle of a room. If you realize that the universe only appears to us to be large, you will then realize that we do not really have any actual size. This point in a room represents reality to you, our entire universe. The room itself requires an explanation, not just the contents.

You are right about your reference to solipsism. It turns the room inside out and our universe becomes a globe we are within and solves the container conundrum.

The reference to the strobe has no merit because we are fully capable of seeing anything we can comprehend.

Rufe

[ny2292000]

Thanks Rufe for the reply. Don't worry about being perceived as argumentative. Any theory worth being read should be debated.

With respect to incompleteness, it is clear that you don't have a good grasp of Cosmology. No theory other than mine provides a solution to the problem of Universe embedding.

Where is the Universe embedded? The currently model of the Universe states that the Universe is still expanding. In the current perception, space is being created at the edge of "reality"...:) I consider this quite incomplete but widely accepted, thus your comment about espousing such an incomplete theory is quite incorrect and lacks perspective.

In my case, our 3D Universe embedding has a simple answer (infinite and empty Cartesian space)…Remember that mine is a homogeneous 5D Spacetime Universe. Matter is just deformed space, thus the embedding question doesn’t even make sense as it does in an universe full of matter (where mass is a concept different from space).

The second comment on your comment is about your recasting of the topology I proposed for the Universe. Instead of shedding light on a new reasoning, it shows that you did not understand the proposed topology.

I would never propose that we live in a point... of course, under those conditions we wouldn't have any dimensionality (actual size). This is a totally detached analogy from the original model and it is a very bad analogy. Just stay with the hyperspherical lightspeed expanding 3D Universe if you can understand that. Don't make things incorrect by proposing your "simplifying" analogy.

Hence your paradoxes wouldn’t exist if you had used my proposed topology.

With respect to the containing space, I mentioned that I am agnostic with the existence of an infinite or finite (and expanding) cartesian space. I mentioned that that space is real as you are since everything in the Universe is made of space (including matter, stars, etc..)
You are an electronic engineer…J thus you should be familiar with the fact that currently a electron is different from a proton.

You stated bravely that
“The reference to the strobe has no merit because we are fully capable of seeing anything we can comprehend.”

Well, I used the Fundamental Dilator (which states that a proton and an electron are different phases of the same coherence) to unify all forces of nature and that support the initial hypothesis that the Proton and Electron are phases of the Fundamental Dilator Coherence.

This proves that you are not fully capable of seeing anything (different phases of the fundamental dilator) we can comprehend… unless you are considering that you cannot comprehend the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm.

In any debate, the parties should show that they understand what they are debating; otherwise the exchange will not make sense.

Please make sure you understand the Fundamental Dilator and the Hyperspherical topology proposed for the 3D Universe.

Follow the links to read about:
The Fundamental Dilator
Time Quantization and the Fat Electron
The Hyperspherical Lightspeed Expanding 3D Universe
The Shockwave Universe

[N0B0DY]

"In my case, our 3D Universe embedding has a simple answer (infinite and empty Cartesian space)…Remember that mine is a homogeneous 5D Spacetime Universe. Matter is just deformed space, thus the embedding question doesn’t even make sense as it does in an universe full of matter (where mass is a concept different from space)."

What would be the cause of the deformations of only certain parts of space, and what would be the reason for the empty cartesian space not being deformed as well?

[ny2292000]

"In my case, our 3D Universe embedding has a simple answer (infinite and empty Cartesian space)…Remember that mine is a homogeneous 5D Spacetime Universe. Matter is just deformed space, thus the embedding question doesn’t even make sense as it does in an universe full of matter (where mass is a concept different from space)."

What would be the cause of the deformations of only certain parts of space, and what would be the reason for the empty cartesian space not being deformed as well?

Dear Nobody,

Since the 3D Universe is a lighspeed traveling shockwave containing all the matter (coherences between deformational states of a 4D spatial metric - or 5D spacetime metric), the rest of the space is not deformed as well...:) otherwise we would be colliding with space deformations (matter) coming from this fourth dimension and that would happen at the speed of light.

The cause of the deformations is the entropic decay of the Initial Deformation. Remember that the model contains initial metric fluctuations of Zero which can return to Zero. If the initial deformation is large enough such that electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces become distinct, then its decay will create the myriad of particles (dilators) and the shockwave expansion.

The details of Cosmogenesis are not as relevant as the implications of the model to particle physics, Cosmology etc. Hence I try to avoid discussion Cosmogenesis.

By the way, this is the only theory where one can make the whole Universe come out of Zero (nothing). The reason is because everything in the Universe is explained in terms of deformations of space. The theory has no mass, charges constructs. It has only metric deformation coherences. The sum of all metric coherences in the Universe reduces the Universe to a flat metric, a pure Cartesian space.

From the Fundamental dilator paradigm you can see that for each space stretching phase there is an equal amplitude space compressing phase. This means that under the correct conditions all matter in the Universe would add up to nothing.

As usual, you can propose anything while extending my model. The only requirement is that it does not collide with what we observe. We don't observe this massive collisions with matter coming from nowhere.

Cheers,

MP

[N0B0DY]

"the rest of the space is not deformed as well...:)"

I think I'll buy it, MP, but I don't understand the reason why we would not be colliding.

Be back shortly. Thanks for the response.

[ny2292000]

"the rest of the space is not deformed as well...:)"

I think I'll buy it, MP, but I don't understand the reason why we would not be colliding.

Be back shortly. Thanks for the response.

Dear Nobody,

Thanks for buying it...:)

As in any theory, my Cosmogenesis theory was crafted such as to avoid introducing events which are not present in reality. One does not see (measure) particles, chunck of matter appearing and disappearing in our 3D Universe. That is what would happen if our 3D shockwave Universe were crossing a region of the 4D space with "deformations" which we call matter.

That will hopefully clarify the problem further.

If there were other 3 shockwave Universes in this 4D manifold we would be seeing the signs of a collision in our 3D visible universe. We don't see that either. This supports the idea that there is only one 3D shockwave universe at any given time in this 4D manifold.

The rest of the model (dimensional transitions) is created to support that observation.

That might be other models equally suitable. I chose this one as the most likely and most profound since it starts with a fluctuation of Zero in a Zero Dimensional Space. One could start with a fluctuation of Zero in a one Dimensional space or two or three or four dimensional spaces... It is just a matter of taste. I preferred thinking that the inital metric fluctuation took place at the same time as the dimensions unfolded. Higher dimesnionality means higher entropic barrier to the return to zero. The decay of an macroscopic metric deformation (100 km or 15 km 4D radius - I don't remember exactly the calculation) into a myriad of very tiny, spinning small deformations in a four-dimensional space creates a tremendous entropic barrier to space relaxation.

As I mentioned before. Please disregard Cosmogenesis until you fully understand the rest of the theory. It is like discussing the sex of angels... There are more interesting things to chat about.

Cheers,

MP

[N0B0DY]

I wish Lloyd was here to have a look at this because I think he proposed something along similar lines and I couldn't make it work for an infinite model for the same reasons addressed here.

I think, as you say, it is the only plausible explanation for the "exterior" universe, but you would have to explain better than he and you have this far the reason for the initial fluctuations and the reason the fluctuations don't continue infinitely.

I'm not saying it's not completely accurate, I do understand what you are proposing, but only accurate in describing spatial mechanics within time. Yet, for me it has to explain why there is the concept of time to begin with, as you imply there is an unfolding of dimensions.

[ny2292000]

I wish Lloyd was here to have a look at this because I think he proposed something along similar lines and I couldn't make it work for an infinite model for the same reasons addressed here.

I think, as you say, it is the only plausible explanation for the "exterior" universe, but you would have to explain better than he and you have this far the reason for the initial fluctuations and the reason the fluctuations don't continue infinitely.

I'm not saying it's not completely accurate, I do understand what you are proposing, but only accurate in describing spatial mechanics within time. Yet, for me it has to explain why there is the concept of time to begin with, as you imply there is an unfolding of dimensions.

Dear Nobody,

Of course, nobody could ever solve that problem while thinking of things in terms other than space. All current Science, makes use of the concepts of Mass, Charge. One can never solve the puzzle of what contains the Universe in any theory that contains those constructs.
It doesn't make sense to think about exterior and interior if everything is just space. My theory, being the only one that contains a geometrical description for matter is the only one that could solve that puzzle.

I don't know which Lloyd are you talking about...:) I love Lloyd Weber...:) in any event, since you kept your privacy (Nobody), I suspect I will never know who Mr Lloyd is. Please feel free to direct Lloyd to my blog. At this time, I cannot replicate it here in the TOEQUEST.

I did not mentioned that space fluctuations stopped from happening. They certainly still happen. I've never mentioned that the virtual particle bath (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle vacuum fluctuations) does not exist. I've mentioned in my theory that the electromagnetic field zero point fluctuations are not associated with the vacuum. Electromagnetic zero point fluctuations are matter driven, that is, they are associated with matter (Black Body Radiation) and vanishe far from matter.

Thus if I am stating that the virtual particle bath exists, that just means that the initial fluctuation that gave origin to the whole Universe is extremely infrequent, but that doesn't mean anything in the period in between Universes...:) Time is irrelevant in between Universe forming metric fluctuation, since there is NOBODY to measure it...:) No alarm clock, watches or anything that cares for the passage of time...:)

As I mentioned, Cosmogenesis is the theory about how things started. It is much more important to understand the THINGS....:) that is, how the Universe can be described in terms of space. I mentioned that one can choose 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D or 4D as a starting point for the Universe. The basic dynamics doesn't really matter. One just need to know that for a given metric fluctuation, the quantized decay of it yields a tremendous entropic barrier which cannot be reversed until the Universe relaxes again.

I consider that time is always there. Cosmological time always ticks. Metric Fluctuations always happens, irrespective to the dimensionality of the space.
Not always there is a Universe which we can call home....:)

Cheers,

MP