I am probably a delusional crank with a lot of crazy, overly speculative conjectures. If I am not delusional, than at the very least I've been ahead of the curve, the last 40 or so years. I was a proponent of M-brane theory before many physicists took string theory seriously.
In 1965, I said von Neumann made a faulty assumption in his mathematical proof that no hidden-variable theory was possible for QM. At the time, very few PhD physicists in the world would have agreed with me. In 1985, I independently discovered Hugh Everett's theory. When I presented it to a dozen PhD physicists, they all said it was silly. Not one informed me that Hugh Everett had proposed it in 1959.
Here are my questions:
Could the number of microstates in a universe increase proportional to the size of a universe? As space-time inflates from a singularity could the number of microstates in the universe increase proportionally? Would this imply entropy increases with space-time inflation, and decreases with space-time deflation? How many microstates are there in a singularity? (With all due respect to Bekenstein radiation. Has Bekenstein radiation ever been proved?)
Hugh Everett -- matter-energy takes every quantum pathway. Hartle and Hawking -- space-time takes every quantum pathway. Max Tegmark -- Matter-Energy and Space-Time takes every possible pathway.
In black holes, temperature-pressure increases, and space-time decreases. What does it mean that time decreases? Time decreasing implies time-reversal. Hawking once thought entropy decreased in black holes. Now he claims that was his greatest blunder. What did Einstein think was his greatest blunder? Was he right?
If the temperature-pressure of all the matter-energy in the universe is increasing, doesn't that imply decreasing entropy. Could inflation be the cause for a cooling universe, the 2LoT, entropy and the arrow of time? Could deflation of space-time be the cause of a hotter universe?
When space-time deflates what happens to matter-energy? Does it change from a gas to a liquid to a solid to a solid that is more dense, more unified, and more compact till it reaches a quantum singularity?
Since when does carrying too much metaphysical baggage disquality a physics theory? Wasn't that the argument the Roman Catholic church had with Galileo's theory that the Sun, not the Earth was at the center of the solar system? Does Hugh Everett's theory really carry more metaphysical baggage than SR, GR, and the CI of QM? Did the straightforward interpretation of GR imply an expanding universe? Did the straightforward interpretation of Dirac's equations predict the positron? Why did Einstein and Dirac not interpret their equations in the most natural way possible?
When Brian Greene first proposed string theory, I said to myself it will eventually become a brane theory. Nothing infinitismal or infinite has ever been observed in the real universe. "Infinitismal" and "infinite" are mathematical abstractions, and Platonic idealizations. They may exist in the real world, but I would not presume they exist, since they have never been observed.
The space-time beyond the event horizon of black holes, and the space-time just following the big bang are just as inaccessible as Everett's other universes. We can't travel into the past and we can't look beyond the event horizon of black holes. Does that mean we can't talk about the time immediately following the BB? Does that mean what exists in beyond the event horizon of black holes will always just be speculative?
Everett's theory not only resolves all the paradoxes of QM, it not only restores QM to classical deterministic theory, it also justifies the anthropic principle.
When I was eight years old I believed Max Tagmark's AUH. I just couldn't believe there was just one universe, or just a limited number of universes. When I was eight my uncle said, if we can never observe those universes they might as well be non-existant. At the time, I accepted what he said. But it turns out that everything in the universe that exists is needed to explain the universe we observe.
There is a wine bottle analogy to explain hidden symmetry. From the top of the wine bottle we can observe hidden symmetry and hidden unity. From a higher plane we can see that the BB singularity is coeval with the present. This explaines entanglement. Einstein was right, there is no spooky action at a distance, because the universe is a branching manifold or tree. From our perspective there can be great space-time distance between two electrons, but from the top of the wine bottle looking down there is zero space-time distance between two electrons. That is why tunneling is possible.
From the perspective of a photon the universe has no width along its axis of travel. It travels no distance, and takes no time to get to its destination. Photons have the perspective of the top of the wine bottle. Everything is entangled because everything is in some sense is still connected and unified in the BB singularity.
Einstein and Edward Tryon both believed in a zero energy universe.
When the average person uses the word energy, they really mean exergy. Exergy is related to entropy. And they are both related to equilibrium, non-equilibrium, and Carnot's cycle. In a universe that is in perfect equilibrium you can't have exergy and you can't have low-entropy, can you?
I believe in a block-time, Eternal universe. What creates the illusion of motion, what creates the illusion of space-time? Our consciousness. Our consciousness is the only thing that moves. We experience space and time because our consciousness can only perceive a fustrum of the whole. It is our consciousness moveing through space-time that produces the illusion of motion. Our consciousness experiences the universe from a single location at the bottom of the wine bottle. Our perspective prevents us from seeing the hidden symmetry, and the hidden unity of the universe. From a higher plane, from a higher dimension looking down on our universe, there is no time, there is a perfect symmetry and a perfect unity.
What does heterotic, bosonic, E8xE8, M-brane theory say about this?
Physics without mathematical equations is nothing, but mathematical equations without interpretation is nothing. Einstein used non-mathematical thought experiments to advance physics. How was that possible if physics is just math?
Light of a certain wavelenth strikes the retina. There an electrical signal travels down the optic nerve to the visual cortex in the brain. Then the brain does something remarkable that physics so far is unable to explain. Our brains create color. The difference between blue light and red light is energy frequency, not color. So many people confuse light of a particular frequency with the effect it produces in human brains. Blue light is not blue. Blue light produces the sensation of blue only in human brains.
Other creatures that can differentiate between different frquency EM radiation may have a completely different sensation than we have when we experience blue light. The thing our brains sense is not light but an electrical signal produced in our retinas. The reality we experience and observe is a virtual reality most likely created by a real external universe. But we should never confuse our experiences and observations with the real universe, which is devoid of color. We see solid objects, but we know the solid objects we see are not solid at all. We just see emitted and reflected EM radition from "electrons" traveling very fast. Perhaps, electrons are just fluxtuations in a complex, multidimensional field, perhaps one that is imaginary.
There is an analogy that explains hidden symmetry by considering the view of from the top of the wine bottle looking down. Sometimes, I think you can actually see that hidden symmetry a lot better looking at the bottom of the wine bottle by looking up through the top of the wine bottle, after you have removed it from your lips.
Cheers, Michael Email: MichaelDWolok@aol.com
Can you resolve this paradox? Let's assume I just created a universe with ten particles in a group in one location, and another ten particles in a group in another location. One group is hotter than the other. The two groups are one light-year apart. The hotter group will emit infrared radiation to the cooler group. How does the hotter group know if the other group is hotter or colder? If the two groups are not in direct contact with each other how does the hotter group know it is hotter?
According to the laws of GR, suppose a creature has a lifespan of ten years. Is it theoretically possible for that creature to travel a distance of a eleven lights before his/her death without ever traveling faster than light, without tunneling? 40 years ago, I realized you don't have to travel faster than light to travel great distances, because the faster you travel, the slower time moves for you, and the shorter distance you need to travel. If you travel 165,000 miles/second for one second, then stop, you will have aged one second, but you will find you have traveled 4 times 165,000 miles. When you travel 165,000 miles/sec, the distance to your distination will decreases by 1/2, and your time will pass half as fast the destination you are traveling to (Assuming your destination is stationary with respect to Earth.). Use the Lorentz transformations and do the math.
Tachyons cannot theoretically exist according to GR, not because they travel backwards in time, but rather because they would overshoot the universe. Suppose you were able to travel arbitrarily close to "c" At some speed, the most distant point in the universe would be no more than a foot away. That means you could to the most distant reaches of the universe in less than a second without ever travelling faster than "c," providing of course the universe didn't die first (The faster you travel, the slower your time moves, and the faster the universe you travel through ages. In the limit, the universe ages infinitely fast. Yet, when photons arrive at thier destination, the universe has only aged a finite amount of time. How is this possible? You gain knowledge by resolving paradoxes. You don't really understand GR, until you understand how the paradoxes of GR are resolved.)
Suppose you could go back in time. Suppose you traveled one second back in time. Where would you be? Most likely in the same place you are now. Where would your former self be? Opps. If you traveled backwards in time, there would be two of you occupying the exact same space. What happens when two nuclei occupy the same space? This presumes of course there is just one past. If Hartle and Hawking are right (Hartle & Hawkings NBP), and time starts at the S. Pole of a hypersphere, and ends the the N. Pole of a hypersphere, there are many ways back to the S. Pole from any place on the sphere.
By the way, "white hole" is really a misnomer. The oppose of a black hole is a white projection. Really "black holes" should be called black, imploding, deflating space-time vortexes or drains, and white holes should be called: white, exploding, inflating space-time fountains. Black holes are part of the universes plumbing. They are like drains in a waterfountain leading to a main drain leading to water main leading to a fountain. Black holes lead to a baby universe--our baby universe. I know present observation lead physicists today to claim the inflation of the universe is accelerating, and the universe will experience heat death. I predict by the time all dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity dust settles, physicists will realize our universe will end in a Big Crunch. I've been right about everything else.
Imagine the universe as a heat pump with no external enviroment. Refrigerant (matter-energy) flashes and explodes out of a tiny orifice into an expansion chamber (evaporater) into an expanding universe, into an inflacting space-time. There the hot-condensed refrigerant expands, cools, and undergoes a change of state, it turns from liquid to a gas (in the case of our universe from a hot dense singularity to cooler matter-energy and radiation). It continues to cool until it gets sucked into a compressor, into a deflating, contracting space. Black holes are compressors. They compress matter-energy the exact same way a heat pump compressor compresses refrigerant. Compressors work by confining refrigerant in a smaller and smaller volume. The temperature and pressure of the refrigerant increases as the volume decreases. The refrigerant exits the compressor and travels through a very narrow tube called a capillary tube. You can call the capillary tube a worm hole. Finally the hot, dense liquid refrigerant (matter-energy) exits the capillary tube through a single tiny orifice where it explodes into an expansion, an expanding, inflated chamber.
Since I view the universe as an eternal block time universe, there is no moving refrigerant. I see the universe as a klein bottle, with cold, low temperature, low pressure, diffuse gas in the large chamber, and high temperature, high pressure liquid in the thin handle.
Escher's waterfall is not possible in the three dimensions, but is possible in four geometric dimensions. In many ways, the universe resembles a still of Escher's waterfall, though from our prespective water moves in it, just like from our prespective matter-energy moves through our universe. That is because we see frustums of world-lines, frustums of world-sheets, and frustums of world-branes (world-manifolds).
Is there anyone following me?