April 19, 2018 S: Space (What is it, and how does it come about?)
“Space, the final frontier…” We’re all familiar with the trekky phrase. We all seem to think we know that space has nothing, is empty, for the most part. It ain’t so. Well, it might be so, if all we do is look at what we think is density (at least, what the universe, or parts of it, “thinks” is density).
To understand more about space, let’s think about how the universe was born. How it got its space, its room for other things to happen. We believe a great deal of potential energy leaked through somewhere. Maybe the leak was from space in another universe that might have started as a very low probability zero point energy. Particle physicists describe zero point energy as a zero ground state found in what we call space.
I like to think about our universe as being made up of localities and nonlocalities. Localities are any part/system/field in space that can be modeled with a cg (center of gravity) whose location depends on the distribution of matter around it. Some parts of space, energy packets (like the electromagnetic wave particles, and subatomic particles) cannot be located, because they are so small and move so fast that their cgs, can only exist in a given location if seen through an adequate experimental setup (when we take a picture of them from one datapoint, instantaneous in time).
[And then there are systems we can study that fall between local and nonlocal. Maybe more complex universal boundaries like us.]
Back to space. Okay, so, instead of these nonlocal particle/waves in space quickly coming in and out of probable existence, we’ve got an improbable zero point energy packet blazing through a former universe at a point. In three-dimensional space, a point has no length, area, or volume. So if all that energy, that started our universe in a big bang, expanded outward, how did it do that if there was no space to move into? Where did all the space come from?
When astronomers look out into space they find that spectral lines (rainbows) of stars that they know become redder and redder the farther away they are. Christian Doppler (1842) suggested that his effect (The Doppler Effect that had been applied to sound (the sound waves of a train whistle become longer and the sound lower as they move away from us) could be applied to the reason stars that are farther away appear redder.
Like the train, are the stars moving away from us? And, if so, why is this happening?
Now, I’m going to say something most of you may think has an obvious answer. How does space come about? We know that planets have cgs, so they are localities. We know that very small particle/wave energy packets exhibit nonlocal behavior. We know when something moves, it needs space to move into. Most will point out the obviousness that all these things are energy distributions. As an outgrowth from my thinking about THE EXPERIENT I’m not so sure that the obvious answer is the only one.
If the universe is like the boundary in our expanding droplet, then the largest most massive systems add the least boundary, and the smaller wave/particle masses have the largest boundaries. Why is that? Because the surface/volume ratio is much larger the smaller the particles. So if larger masses are broken down into smaller ones, the boundary of the universe automatically increases in length (makes more space).
We can create space then, maybe, when things break apart. But things that break apart need additional space for the crack to form.
Back to the Red Shift in space. It means that the universe is expanding and as we guessed, its expands more around smaller particles than larger one. That makes sense because we know that the larger a mass, the greater the gravitational field around its cg, and the harder it is to move (the more inertia it has).
In our experiment, expansion causes the crests to flatten. Any location along a flat crest (low curvature) can initiate another trough. Random perturbations there are small, so curvature is small and resulting small troughs (masses) can abound. The original troughs (near the Big Bang Singularity) are of high curvature, meaning massive, and so the great inertia there resists an outward flow and change. It is easy to see why such a high curvature trough/mass resists the outward flow of space (notice we haven’t got to what causes the production of that space, but only are examining what we know from low energy exchanges). Our experiment suggests other ways, other perspectives, on this resistance to the outward flow of energy. For example, what if, like water in a stream taking the path of least resistance around a rock, it is easier for the flow of energy to go around a highly curved obstacle more than moving it forward/outward (especially if the trough-curvature/space-curvature is very tight)? Or could it be that space is created for smaller particles which allow the motion, and the flow bypasses the masses, extending the crests?
Space itself may be created by the chance of something statistically happening somewhere. It may be the chance of highly charged particles being in outer space that drive the outward expansion of the universe between masses and that creates the inertia or mass drag or gravitational tension against that expansion.
[When we get to the Z term, ZERO, we will get into how we think the universe is growing in such a way as to produce the Red Shift in starlight.
When we get past Z, we will talk about ∏ and then, go back to discussing how the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) and the Theory of Everything (TOE) may not exist for solely massive objects, based on the difference of how information is transferred (shape is changed) in localities (local cg/gravitational fields/highly curved troughs) vs nonlocalities (small energy packets at light velocities on flattened crest where curvature approaches zero).
A new article about the expansion of the universe, theories about it, and how it compares to relativity and the speed of light. We have said here before that while the universe expanded in time about 15 billion years, it expanded in space by about three times that. (The problem this brings up is when we try to travel to the nearest star. Even at the speed of light, it seems we may never get there because of expansion!)]
These theories rely on the universe being a finite space that is expanding. I don’t believe the universe to be a closed manifold, it’s open, infinite, what’s in space is merely moving outward, but can do so until it loses momentum and collapses. But the universe itself would remain intact.
Could be. The jury’s out on that one. Our expanding two-fluid interface analog to the universe is an example of a virtual reality. It just depends on the perspectives of the included systems. This may be the entire, multidimensional universe behind all the meaning given to it, but, so far, WIBWI, What Is Behind What Is, remains a mystery.