This is my second post at this forum; I hope I'm putting it in the right place. I have been posting my thoughts on this subject, as they come to me, at VanFlandern's site: MetaResearch.org. I'll edit in links as soon as I am approved for that. I shall be frequently editing this first post of the thread, as my model is still in a state of flux.
A Fractal Foam Model of Universes
by Philip Janes
I am neither scientist nor mathematician nor God’s prophet on Earth. I’ll be the first to admit that no model of an infinite universe can ever be proven correct; but if it is correct, it just might yield better answers than any finite model.
Genesis
In the beginning was the foam, in which bubbles of random size were, at first, randomly distributed and stationary. Blobs where the bubbles happened to be significantly larger or smaller made up the earliest particles of matter and antimatter. Randomly, a few bubbles burst, radiating pressure waves thru the foam. Those pressure waves changed speed and direction as they passed thru the blobs; this imparted momentum to the blobs, but in random directions. Some of the blobs, however, happened to join into self-perpetuating colonies which caused P-waves of certain magnitudes to either fuse together or split apart, which caused those blobs to either attract or repel one another. These forces of attraction and repulsion caused the blobs to move thru the foam like packets of waves, which gathered speed and momentum until they either collided with or orbited one another; this lead to the generation of order within the randomness.
The blobs of matter and antimatter organized themselves into larger foams within the original foam; bubbles in these two larger foams popped, radiating more P-waves. From the perspective of the matter foam, the antimatter bubbles seemed to be un-popping, and vice versa, because time progresses backward in each foam relative to the other. The un-popping of antimatter bubbles caused the matter foam to expand, and vice versa; this mutual expansion resulted in more popping and un-popping bubbles, more P-waves, more attraction and repulsion, etc. Billions of years later, the matter foam bubbles had grown to astronomical size, while the antimatter bubbles had become unimaginably small (and vice versa from an antimatter perspective). The process repeated countless times before leading to the formation of the foams which we now call our own universe.
Foams Great & Small
Recently, half a million galaxies have been mapped in 3D; they appear to be clustered in great walls, which form the boundaries of great voids. The big picture resembles a foam not unlike that of a bubble bath or the head on a good glass of beer. What we can see of it is maybe 100 average-size bubbles thick in every direction. The bubbles come in various sizes from about 10 million to 150 million light-years across; it seems likely the sizes are random; for brevity, I’ll call this the Cosmic Foam (CF).
I propose that there is another foam, absolutely identical in form to the Cosmic Foam, but mind-bogglingly smaller in scale; I’ll call it the Ether Foam (EF). (This is strikingly different from John Archibald Wheeler’s concept of a "quantum foam”, which is related to string theory.) Our EF is the CF of a sub-universe; and our CF is the EF of a super-universe. That super-universe has its own CF, which is the EF of a super-duper-universe, and so on to infinity, both large and small.
I am just guessing that the average EF bubble diameter is approximately equal to the Plank length; LP ≈ 10^-35 meter. Since a light-year is approximately 10^16 meter, the average CF bubble might be about 10^24 meter across; for the sake of round numbers, let’s call it 10^25 meter. That gives us a distance scale factor, from EF to CF, of about 10^60; on a logarithmic scale, 10^-5 meter is halfway between those two extremes; i.e., an EF bubble is to a Gillette Foamy bubble as a Gillette Foamy bubble is to a CF bubble. Besides the distance scale factor, there must be scale factors for time, mass, etc. I am not ready to hazard a guess as to what those other scale factors might be. For all I know, one sub-universe galaxy might have as much inertial mass as our own Milky Way, but this probably can never be determined within a hundred orders of magnitude.
Expansion of Space
According to Big Bang theory, the red shift of distant galaxies is best explained by expansion of space; I do not dispute that, but at least I offer a real concept of what space is. All of our measures of time, distance, etc., are inadvertently determined by the average size of EF bubbles and the speed at which waves propagate thru them; in other words, EF bubbles are space; more bubbles, more space. CF bubbles expand relative to the shrinking of EF bubbles, and vice versa. From our perspective, EF bubbles don’t seem to shrink because we are shrinking with them; every electron and proton in our universe shrinks with the EF bubbles.
If the shrinkage of EF bubbles were perfectly uniform—each individual bubble shrinking relative to the CF at a constant rate—there would have to be a center of the contraction (or expansion, from our point of view); and parts of our infinite universe far from the center would have motion greater than light speed, relative to the EF. For that reason, I propose the shrinkage of EF bubbles is a continual succession of individual bubbles splitting in two, i.e., un-popping. Each time an EF bubble is split by a new wall across its middle, a tiny bit of space is created in our universe. (Later, it will become clear that this creation of space has a definite energy cost; just as E=mc^2, there must also be an energy equivalent of space.)
Time Reversals
The splitting of a bubble in a foam is counterintuitive; what could possibly make a bubble un-pop? When a foam expands, bubbles pop, sending very energetic pressure waves (P-waves) thru the foam. Suppose those P-waves propagate thru the EF for thousands of light-years without losing energy until a group of them just happens to converge in just such a way as to duplicate in reverse the bubble popping that created them. Even if it happens thus, it still looks very much like time reversal.
I believe the super-universe and sub-universe are running backward relative to our own universe. Therefore, I strongly suspect they are made of antimatter. Running our clocks backward and sub-universe clocks forward, we might imagine some far-distant past when the EF and CF had the same average bubble size—one universe with equal portions of equal-sized matter and anti-matter; then the antimatter universe shrank from a “normal matter” point of view, and our universe shrank from an anti-matter point of view. Actually, I’m am reluctant to think farther into the past than a time when one galaxy was as big as an average-size CF bubble; was there some sort of phase shift about that time; was the cosmos foamy before that time?
Fatio-Lesage Gravity
(www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm)
(www.mathpages.com/home/kmath181/kmath181.htm)
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation)
Some three centuries ago, Georges-Louis Lesage, proposed a mechanism to explain the cause of gravity. He postulated the existence of a perfect gas made up of ultra-fast, ultra-small, ultra-numerous particles, which he called gravitons. These gravitons, he proposed, bounce off of the tiniest particles of matter, leaving behind momentum. To one matter particle, he supposed, another matter particle must look dark against the otherwise uniform background of gravitons; therefore the two matter particles are pushed toward one another. There were serious problems with Lesage’s model; some have been dealt with, others have not. Visit MetaResearch for an extensive discussion of Lesage; that is where I started developing my own model.
Now back to my model: If the EF is a random foam, it must contain tiny regions where the bubbles are smaller, and other regions where they are larger. Given a large enough volume of random foam, it is guaranteed that any variation you care to describe will occur within that volume. Bubble size should have some effect on the speed at which P-waves propagate thru the EF, and that should cause refraction of the P-waves. If a P-wave passes thru a tiny blob of different bubble size and departs in a different direction, like Lesage’s graviton, it must leave behind some momentum. But one such blob won’t look dark to another blob unless something happens besides mere refraction of P-waves. The P-waves are far too energetic to be absorbed without destroying the blob. It has been calculated that for every one Lesage graviton absorbed, 100 quintillion must be scattered. I offer a simpler solution; instead of being absorbed or scattered, what if the graviton is split in two? This can easily explain the force of gravity in a Lesage-type model; momentum and energy are conserved in each individual event, rather than being inexplicably transferred from one event to the other 100 quintillion.
Unification of Forces
If P-waves can split, why not fuse? Applying Lesage’s argument could then explain why like particles repel one another. With some help, I expect to explain all the particles and forces of nature with a manageable number of fundamental blobs which have the ability to either split or fuse P-waves with resulting Fatio-LeSage type forces. Perhaps, the tiny blobs of smaller bubble-size are the matter particles, while similar blobs of larger bubble-size are antimatter particles; or each particle may be a complex of both types of fundamental blobs, with matter and antimatter having complementary large vs. small blobs. I doubt if I can solve this part of the puzzle alone; anyone out there want to form a think-tank?
Blobs in Motion
To illustrate how the blobs move, imagine a 2D foam on a sheet of paper; place a magnifying lens on the paper and move it about. The individual EF bubbles do not travel thru our universe; instead, they expand and contract in waves as a blob passes thru, driven by Lesage-type forces. Momentum imparted to the blob by splitting or fusing P-waves becomes the momentum of a packet of S-waves that comprise the blob. I suppose the distortion of the ether, as these blobs move about, must be a very small percentage of average bubble size. Here is a real challenge for some mathematician specializing in foam dynamics; show how a blob can propagate as a wave thru the foam without friction, and how it has inertia and momentum; calculate this for the CF and scale it down for the EF. While you’re at it, see if P-waves in the CF can explain the directional variations in the CMB radiation.
I am supposing that matter consists of tiny blobs of variations of bubble size within the foam; these variations may have originated at random when the foam first formed. Though randomly distributed, at first, the presence of P-waves and Lesage-type forces drove the blobs into a more ordered state. Does the creation of new space by splitting ether bubbles create more matter? Evidently, not! Our universe appears to be growing less dense. Ether bubbles probably do not un-pop randomly; only the largest ether bubbles un-pop; smaller ones wait until their neighbors have become smaller than they are. If the un-popping is orderly, then no new randomness is created, and therefore no new matter.
Space Warp
By the way, if all ordinary matter is made of blobs of ether with smaller bubbles, that could explain the warping of space in dense concentrations of matter. Blobs probably overlap one another, having indefinite boundaries that taper off in proportion to distance from the center. At the level of quarks or smaller, perhaps two objects can occupy the same space in the same tiny instant of time. A concentration of blobs would contain more bubbles, and therefore more internal space, than a neighboring space of the same external size.
The opposite might be true for an antimatter universe; more antimatter in a box would mean less internal space than what the external size of the box suggests.
Speeds of Gravity and Light
Among supposedly reputable scientists, there is considerable disagreement and misunderstanding on the topic of the speed of gravity. Einstein predicted gravity waves propagating at the speed of light; some astrophysicists think the force of gravity propagates at the same speed as gravity waves. According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GR), the gravity force vector of a galaxy acting on our own galaxy points in the direction of where that distant galaxy is now—not where it was when the light now reaching us was emitted. So, without saying gravity propagates, at all, Einstein implied that it propagates with infinite speed.
Lesage-type theorists believe the force of gravity propagates at the speed of gravitons–at least 20 billion times the speed of light. I tentatively accept that speed estimate, but to me it represents the speed of P-waves in the ether. The speed of light is, I believe, the speed of S-waves in the ether. S-waves do not occur in a gas or liquid; they only occur in solids. Yes, the ether is a solid! That should not surprise you as much as it probably does; all solids are mostly empty space; what distinguishes them from liquids and gasses is rigidity; a solid has a tendency to retain its shape.
Energy Equivalent of Space
How many ether bubbles un-pop per second per cubic meter, how much space does that create, and how much energy goes into the average un-popping event?
At present, the Hubble Constant is estimated at 71 km/Mpc/s; in standard metric units, that is
7.1 x 10^4m / 3.1 x 10^22m / s = 2.4 x 10^-18 / s.
So, in every cubic meter, (2.4 x 10^-18)^3 = 1.38 x 10^-55 m^3 ≈ 10^50 Plank volume of new space is created every second. (VP = LP^3 ≈ 10^-105 m^3)
An ether bubble which is ready to un-pop is probably larger than the average ether bubble.
Let’s say the average volume of an ether bubble, ready to pop, is one cubic X; (X is probably close to the Plank length, LP, give an order of magnitude). An average un-popping event creates, ((X/LP)^3)/2 of new space.
As for the energy per event, I haven’t a clue!
Range of Gravity
Another belief held by Lesage-type theorists is the limited range of gravity rg, estimated to be at least ten thousand light-years—a tenth of the diameter of our own galaxy. If that is so, then Newton’s universal law of gravitation should be rewritten.
Instead of F = G (m1m2/r^2), it should be F = G(m1m2/(r^2·2^(r/rg)), which makes the force proportional to the inverse cube of distance at galactic scales. This might better explain the formation of galactic spiral arms, hanging together like a spinning line of ice skaters with interlocked hands, rather than by invisible forces (or dark matter) between the arms; or maybe not.
Gravitons, in other Lesage-type models, are postulated as rigid particles of a perfect gas, bouncing off one another at the range of gravity. My gravitons are waves which can pass thru one another without changing direction or speed. Therefore, my gravitons don’t need to be quite so small. Nevertheless, waves can coincide to exceed the material strength of their medium; in my model, this relates to un-popping ether bubbles, which may limit the range of gravity.
Now that we’re back to un-popping bubbles and time reversal, here’s a really deep philosophical question for you to ponder: If the un-popping of an ether bubble is caused by the random convergence of just the right set of P-waves, then where did those P-waves come from? And if those P-waves were caused by the popping of the bubble in reverse time—an event that hasn’t yet happened in our time, does that mean those particular P-waves are predestined to un-pop that particular bubble? Can the effect precede its own cause? If so, do we have any ability, at all, to change our future? Maybe there is yet another infinite dimension to the greater universe—the dimension of which future we choose every time we make the minutest decision; every possible future exists. Indeed, each future available to us, now, has already happened from a sub-universe point of view; we just haven’t decided yet if we want to eliminate that sub-universe from our own future.
QUOTE (PhilJ+May 28 2007, 10:54 PM)
I hope I'm putting it in the right place.
Update: 2008 July 05
By 2007 October, I had abandoned several key features of the Fractal Foam Model as I posted it here on 2007 May 28. I now believe the following sections of that post are false: “Blobs in Motion”, “Space Warp” & most of “Genesis”. In October, I posted my revised model on my own Yahoo!360 blog . Since then, progress has been slow. I seem to have reached a point beyond which imagination is not sufficient; my math is too weak to answer the questions that the model now presents. I shall leave my original post of 5/28/07 unchanged for historical purposes and redevelop the model afresh.
A Fractal Foam Model of Universes
The large-scale distribution of galaxies is now believed to resemble foam, with walls of galaxies surrounding voids. These walls intersect at clusters; the clusters intersect at super-clusters. I call this structure the cosmic foam (CF); it has also been referred to as a web, emphasizing the clusters rather than the walls.
It is also now known that the galaxies are moving farther apart throughout the cosmic foam; adherents to big bang theory attribute this to expansion of the universe. I believe the universe is infinite, and therefore it can’t get any bigger; but the space in the infinite universe can and does expand. I believe I have a deep understanding of the mechanism underlying the expansion of space, and it is the source of all matter and energy.
Before proceeding to explain the expansion of space, I must clarify my use of the plural “universes”. There is a greater fractal universe of which our universe is a scale-wise subset. Our universe is bounded by the scale of the Planck length and that of the cosmic foam. Our visible universe is the subset of our universe contained within our Hubble sphere. An observer at the edge of our Hubble sphere is at the center of a different Hubble sphere, and we are at the edge of it. At the far edge of that Hubble sphere is yet another, and infinite others beyond that. There is no large-scale warping of infinite space connecting the ends of straight lines; that can happen only in a finite universe. Time-wise, our universe is bounded by an initial condition to be described under "Beginnings” as an alternative to the big bang; I have not yet determined whether there will be an end to our universe.
The expansion of our space makes the voids of the CF larger, stretching the walls of galaxies thinner. There eventually comes a time when a wall of galaxies is stretched so thin that gravity between adjacent galaxies can no longer maintain the integrity of the wall against the pull of gravity from the adjacent walls. Therefore, one by one, bubble walls of the CF pop. Of course, you must have a God-like perception of time to hear one of these bubbles popping; the event may last billions of years; but we all have God-like imaginations, don’t we; just think of the CF as the head on a giant glass of beer. While a CF bubble wall is popping, the galaxies accelerate away from the breach and toward the adjacent walls; they gain tremendous momentum and energy along the way. Near the edges of the ruptured wall, those fast-moving galaxies collide violently with the resident galaxies of the adjacent walls.
These intergalactic collisions are not the end of the bubble-popping event; there is still tremendous momentum and energy which must be conserved. Pressure waves must radiate outward thru the CF in a manner similar to acoustic waves in a solid foam. In the plane of the ruptured wall, positive-pressure p-waves spread like ripples on a pond; perpendicular to that plane, negative-pressure p-waves radiate in opposite directions. The science and math of CF acoustics has not yet been invented; it must differ from the acoustics of more familiar solid foams because the gravitational forces between galaxies are fundamentally different from intermolecular forces. A super-computer model of the CF must take this into account, as well as the possibility that the speed and range of gravity are finite.
(VanFlandern estimates the speed of gravity (vg) > 20 billion c. In this article, cg is the speed of gravity, and cl is the speed of light. So, cg/cl > 2 x 109. I disagree with most of VanFlandern’s wacky theories, but he may be right on this one point. I was inspired by his iconoclastic spirit, and my model first began to take shape on his forum, but with no positive input from VanFlandern or others.)
Other Universes & Time Inversions
The cosmic foam (CF) of our universe is the ether foam (EF) of a super-universe, and the EF of our universe is the CF of a sub-universe; these are but three in an infinite scale-wise sequence of universes. (I use the terms “the sub-universe” and “our sub-universe” interchangeably when referring to the next smaller universe than ours in the infinite sequence. Likewise with “super-universe”.) The p-waves in our CF are the dark energy of the super-universe, and p-waves similarly generated by the expansion of sub-universe space are the dark energy of our universe.
The expansion of sub-universe space causes the expansion of our space by popping sub-universe CF bubbles. Space can be measured in terms of median-size EF bubbles. (Definition: Bubbles larger than the median size contain half the volume of a given region of space.) I hazard a wild guess that the median size EF bubble in our universe is roughly a Planck volume (Lp3) = 10^-105 m^3, and the median-size bubble width is roughly 10^-35 m. So a meter stick is about 10^35 median-size bubble widths long; this number does not change as space expands. The meter stick is moving rapidly thru the ether, and new bubbles are appearing within the meter stick, but they do not change the length of the meter stick; it remains 10^35 bubbles long.
There is an apparent contradiction between sub-universe CF bubbles popping and the number of our EF bubbles increasing. For our space to expand, the number of bubbles in every region must increase, but popping converts two bubble into one. Converting one bubble into two requires the formation of a new wall across the middle of the original bubble; I call this “un-popping”. Each time a sub-universe CF bubble pops, one of our EF bubbles must un-pop. In other words, time in the sub-universe runs backwards compared to our time. As our universe gets older, the scale-wise adjacent super-universe and sub-universe are getting younger.
Sub-universe CF p-waves radiate outward from a past CF bubble popping event; our EF p-waves converge upon a future EF bubble un-popping event. This raises an imponderable philosophical question: Is the un-popping caused by the convergence of p-waves, or are the radiating p-waves caused by the popping. Perhaps there are alternative sub-universe pasts (in our future) which can equally well explain the presence of a particular pattern of EF p-waves in our present. Perhaps we have alternative futures which can equally well explain a particular future convergence of EF p-waves. I confess; I don’t know what I’m talking about. Anyway, I believe I have opened the door for a new perspective in the debate over double-slit results. Perhaps this will lead to a resolution of the question of parallel universe at the same scale as our own.
Dark Energy is the Source of All
Presumably, the CF and EF are random foams; i.e., bubble sizes vary considerably and at random with a certain mean, median and mode. Bubbles already measured in our CF range approximately between 10^23 and 1.5 x 10^24 meter across. Given sufficiently small regions of the CF, there may exist significant variations in the median bubble size for the region. For regions measuring (10 Lp)^3, the median size is fairly uniform; but the universe is infinite, so there must be regions that size which have large random variations from the median bubble size. For lack of a better word, I call such regions “blobs”.
What happens to a p-wave when it encounters a blob? And what happens to the blob? I believe a p-wave will move at a slower speed in a blob of decreased median bubble size, and faster in a blob of increased median bubble size. (I could be wrong; maybe it’s the other way around.) P-waves carry momentum, and a change of speed changes that momentum; the blob must acquire an equal and opposite change of momentum. When the p-wave leaves the blob, its momentum and that of the blob are restored, but the blob remains displaced from its equilibrium position in the foam. Sheer stresses in the surrounding foam return the blob to its previous location. If cg/cl > 2 x 10^9, the p-wave is long gone before the blob can return to equilibrium, and s-waves radiate at cl perpendicular to the path of the p-wave.
Quantization
We know about a transition from the macro realm to the quantum realm, somewhere around the scale of atoms. Our macro realm extends out at least to the scale of the CF. Presumably, the macro realm of the sub-universe extends to the scale of our EF. There has to be a transition from our quantum realm to the sub-universe’s macro realm. I believe that, in this transition realm, chaos rules; s-waves and p-waves fill the ether randomly. There are, however, attractors which bring order to the chaos; each chaotic attractor corresponds to a fundamental particle, and each particle can exist only in quantum form. There may be many short-lived attractors of which we know nothing; the particles that have been observed are the ones that endure. The creation of order from chaos might seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics; it does not because our universe is not a closed system. The sub-universe’s CF is the dumping ground for sub-universe entropy; but time inversion converts that to a flow of disentropy into our universe. I suspect this law of entropy may need a slight revision; I think the total entropy of the greater fractal universe may be a constant, but this can never be proven.
S-waves Interact with P-waves
When two s-waves pass thru one another, neither is altered or affected in any way; likewise when two p-waves pass thru one another. However, when an s-wave and a p-wave pass thru one another, I believe there is an exchange of momentum. The character and quantity of the exchange depends upon the phase relationship of the two waves as well as upon their relative wavelengths. (I must learn how to post an image on this board. In the mean time refer to the vector diagrams in my Yahoo!360 blog). Since the p-wave speed is many times greater, its total momentum is similarly greater; consequently, the p-wave’s deflection is also proportionally smaller. The net effect upon an s-wave, of countless p-wave collisions from random directions with random polarities, is nil. However, the mix of p-waves coming from the direction of an s-wave is slightly altered from the otherwise random background.
When a pair of s-waves of just the right wavelength pass close to one another, this deviation from random of the p-wave background may result in a net attractive or repulsive force. To understand this, it helps to first understand why similar forces proposed by Fatio and Lesage cannot result from random scattering of gravitons. The key difference between their model and mine is the introduction of polarity relationships which make the interactions nonrandom.
Some particles
In some cases, the attractive force between s-waves is insufficient to hold them together in a stationary location relative to the EF. The orbital velocity of the s-waves relative to their common center is much less than cl, so they must follow a double-helix path at cl while the common center follows a straight line at nearly cl relative to the ether. These particles have little mass compared to their energy; neutrinos, and perhaps all the leptons, must be of this character. (I am wondering if free electrons can exist without considerable minimum speed relative to the ether; is that minimum speed low enough to reveal our exact velocity relative to the ether?)
Equivalence of Energy & Space
Space is equivalent to energy
Due to time inversion, p-waves in the EF converge—seemingly at random—and their considerable energy goes into the un-popping of an ether-foam bubble. Thereby, dark energy is converted to new space. I don’t know how much energy is involved, but it probably fits the general formula: E = kVrho(cg)^2; k is an unknown constant; V is the volume of new space created, rho is the inertial density of the ether, and vg is the speed of gravity. The only known quantity in that formula is E; I imagine that rho must be somewhere between 1 and 10^180 kg/m^3.
Beginnings
My alternative to big bang: to be edited in soon.
By 2007 October, I had abandoned several key features of the Fractal Foam Model as I posted it here on 2007 May 28. I now believe the following sections of that post are false: “Blobs in Motion”, “Space Warp” & most of “Genesis”. In October, I posted my revised model on my own Yahoo!360 blog . Since then, progress has been slow. I seem to have reached a point beyond which imagination is not sufficient; my math is too weak to answer the questions that the model now presents. I shall leave my original post of 5/28/07 unchanged for historical purposes and redevelop the model afresh.
A Fractal Foam Model of Universes
The large-scale distribution of galaxies is now believed to resemble foam, with walls of galaxies surrounding voids. These walls intersect at clusters; the clusters intersect at super-clusters. I call this structure the cosmic foam (CF); it has also been referred to as a web, emphasizing the clusters rather than the walls.
It is also now known that the galaxies are moving farther apart throughout the cosmic foam; adherents to big bang theory attribute this to expansion of the universe. I believe the universe is infinite, and therefore it can’t get any bigger; but the space in the infinite universe can and does expand. I believe I have a deep understanding of the mechanism underlying the expansion of space, and it is the source of all matter and energy.
Before proceeding to explain the expansion of space, I must clarify my use of the plural “universes”. There is a greater fractal universe of which our universe is a scale-wise subset. Our universe is bounded by the scale of the Planck length and that of the cosmic foam. Our visible universe is the subset of our universe contained within our Hubble sphere. An observer at the edge of our Hubble sphere is at the center of a different Hubble sphere, and we are at the edge of it. At the far edge of that Hubble sphere is yet another, and infinite others beyond that. There is no large-scale warping of infinite space connecting the ends of straight lines; that can happen only in a finite universe. Time-wise, our universe is bounded by an initial condition to be described under "Beginnings” as an alternative to the big bang; I have not yet determined whether there will be an end to our universe.
The expansion of our space makes the voids of the CF larger, stretching the walls of galaxies thinner. There eventually comes a time when a wall of galaxies is stretched so thin that gravity between adjacent galaxies can no longer maintain the integrity of the wall against the pull of gravity from the adjacent walls. Therefore, one by one, bubble walls of the CF pop. Of course, you must have a God-like perception of time to hear one of these bubbles popping; the event may last billions of years; but we all have God-like imaginations, don’t we; just think of the CF as the head on a giant glass of beer. While a CF bubble wall is popping, the galaxies accelerate away from the breach and toward the adjacent walls; they gain tremendous momentum and energy along the way. Near the edges of the ruptured wall, those fast-moving galaxies collide violently with the resident galaxies of the adjacent walls.
These intergalactic collisions are not the end of the bubble-popping event; there is still tremendous momentum and energy which must be conserved. Pressure waves must radiate outward thru the CF in a manner similar to acoustic waves in a solid foam. In the plane of the ruptured wall, positive-pressure p-waves spread like ripples on a pond; perpendicular to that plane, negative-pressure p-waves radiate in opposite directions. The science and math of CF acoustics has not yet been invented; it must differ from the acoustics of more familiar solid foams because the gravitational forces between galaxies are fundamentally different from intermolecular forces. A super-computer model of the CF must take this into account, as well as the possibility that the speed and range of gravity are finite.
(VanFlandern estimates the speed of gravity (vg) > 20 billion c. In this article, cg is the speed of gravity, and cl is the speed of light. So, cg/cl > 2 x 109. I disagree with most of VanFlandern’s wacky theories, but he may be right on this one point. I was inspired by his iconoclastic spirit, and my model first began to take shape on his forum, but with no positive input from VanFlandern or others.)
Other Universes & Time Inversions
The cosmic foam (CF) of our universe is the ether foam (EF) of a super-universe, and the EF of our universe is the CF of a sub-universe; these are but three in an infinite scale-wise sequence of universes. (I use the terms “the sub-universe” and “our sub-universe” interchangeably when referring to the next smaller universe than ours in the infinite sequence. Likewise with “super-universe”.) The p-waves in our CF are the dark energy of the super-universe, and p-waves similarly generated by the expansion of sub-universe space are the dark energy of our universe.
The expansion of sub-universe space causes the expansion of our space by popping sub-universe CF bubbles. Space can be measured in terms of median-size EF bubbles. (Definition: Bubbles larger than the median size contain half the volume of a given region of space.) I hazard a wild guess that the median size EF bubble in our universe is roughly a Planck volume (Lp3) = 10^-105 m^3, and the median-size bubble width is roughly 10^-35 m. So a meter stick is about 10^35 median-size bubble widths long; this number does not change as space expands. The meter stick is moving rapidly thru the ether, and new bubbles are appearing within the meter stick, but they do not change the length of the meter stick; it remains 10^35 bubbles long.
There is an apparent contradiction between sub-universe CF bubbles popping and the number of our EF bubbles increasing. For our space to expand, the number of bubbles in every region must increase, but popping converts two bubble into one. Converting one bubble into two requires the formation of a new wall across the middle of the original bubble; I call this “un-popping”. Each time a sub-universe CF bubble pops, one of our EF bubbles must un-pop. In other words, time in the sub-universe runs backwards compared to our time. As our universe gets older, the scale-wise adjacent super-universe and sub-universe are getting younger.
Sub-universe CF p-waves radiate outward from a past CF bubble popping event; our EF p-waves converge upon a future EF bubble un-popping event. This raises an imponderable philosophical question: Is the un-popping caused by the convergence of p-waves, or are the radiating p-waves caused by the popping. Perhaps there are alternative sub-universe pasts (in our future) which can equally well explain the presence of a particular pattern of EF p-waves in our present. Perhaps we have alternative futures which can equally well explain a particular future convergence of EF p-waves. I confess; I don’t know what I’m talking about. Anyway, I believe I have opened the door for a new perspective in the debate over double-slit results. Perhaps this will lead to a resolution of the question of parallel universe at the same scale as our own.
Dark Energy is the Source of All
Presumably, the CF and EF are random foams; i.e., bubble sizes vary considerably and at random with a certain mean, median and mode. Bubbles already measured in our CF range approximately between 10^23 and 1.5 x 10^24 meter across. Given sufficiently small regions of the CF, there may exist significant variations in the median bubble size for the region. For regions measuring (10 Lp)^3, the median size is fairly uniform; but the universe is infinite, so there must be regions that size which have large random variations from the median bubble size. For lack of a better word, I call such regions “blobs”.
What happens to a p-wave when it encounters a blob? And what happens to the blob? I believe a p-wave will move at a slower speed in a blob of decreased median bubble size, and faster in a blob of increased median bubble size. (I could be wrong; maybe it’s the other way around.) P-waves carry momentum, and a change of speed changes that momentum; the blob must acquire an equal and opposite change of momentum. When the p-wave leaves the blob, its momentum and that of the blob are restored, but the blob remains displaced from its equilibrium position in the foam. Sheer stresses in the surrounding foam return the blob to its previous location. If cg/cl > 2 x 10^9, the p-wave is long gone before the blob can return to equilibrium, and s-waves radiate at cl perpendicular to the path of the p-wave.
Quantization
We know about a transition from the macro realm to the quantum realm, somewhere around the scale of atoms. Our macro realm extends out at least to the scale of the CF. Presumably, the macro realm of the sub-universe extends to the scale of our EF. There has to be a transition from our quantum realm to the sub-universe’s macro realm. I believe that, in this transition realm, chaos rules; s-waves and p-waves fill the ether randomly. There are, however, attractors which bring order to the chaos; each chaotic attractor corresponds to a fundamental particle, and each particle can exist only in quantum form. There may be many short-lived attractors of which we know nothing; the particles that have been observed are the ones that endure. The creation of order from chaos might seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics; it does not because our universe is not a closed system. The sub-universe’s CF is the dumping ground for sub-universe entropy; but time inversion converts that to a flow of disentropy into our universe. I suspect this law of entropy may need a slight revision; I think the total entropy of the greater fractal universe may be a constant, but this can never be proven.
S-waves Interact with P-waves
When two s-waves pass thru one another, neither is altered or affected in any way; likewise when two p-waves pass thru one another. However, when an s-wave and a p-wave pass thru one another, I believe there is an exchange of momentum. The character and quantity of the exchange depends upon the phase relationship of the two waves as well as upon their relative wavelengths. (I must learn how to post an image on this board. In the mean time refer to the vector diagrams in my Yahoo!360 blog). Since the p-wave speed is many times greater, its total momentum is similarly greater; consequently, the p-wave’s deflection is also proportionally smaller. The net effect upon an s-wave, of countless p-wave collisions from random directions with random polarities, is nil. However, the mix of p-waves coming from the direction of an s-wave is slightly altered from the otherwise random background.
When a pair of s-waves of just the right wavelength pass close to one another, this deviation from random of the p-wave background may result in a net attractive or repulsive force. To understand this, it helps to first understand why similar forces proposed by Fatio and Lesage cannot result from random scattering of gravitons. The key difference between their model and mine is the introduction of polarity relationships which make the interactions nonrandom.
Some particles
In some cases, the attractive force between s-waves is insufficient to hold them together in a stationary location relative to the EF. The orbital velocity of the s-waves relative to their common center is much less than cl, so they must follow a double-helix path at cl while the common center follows a straight line at nearly cl relative to the ether. These particles have little mass compared to their energy; neutrinos, and perhaps all the leptons, must be of this character. (I am wondering if free electrons can exist without considerable minimum speed relative to the ether; is that minimum speed low enough to reveal our exact velocity relative to the ether?)
Equivalence of Energy & Space
Space is equivalent to energy
Due to time inversion, p-waves in the EF converge—seemingly at random—and their considerable energy goes into the un-popping of an ether-foam bubble. Thereby, dark energy is converted to new space. I don’t know how much energy is involved, but it probably fits the general formula: E = kVrho(cg)^2; k is an unknown constant; V is the volume of new space created, rho is the inertial density of the ether, and vg is the speed of gravity. The only known quantity in that formula is E; I imagine that rho must be somewhere between 1 and 10^180 kg/m^3.
Beginnings
My alternative to big bang: to be edited in soon.
Beginnings
I have mentioned only three universe---our universe, our super-universe and our sub-universe. These are but three in an infinite sequence of universes.
I believe these universe are engaged in a never-ending dance of expansion and contraction. The expansion of our sub-universe causes the expansion of our universe, and the expansion of our universe causes the expansion of our super-universe. For this to work, it is necessary for time in alternate universes to run in opposite directions. So as our universe gets older our sub-universe and our super-universe are getting younger. This suggests to me that our sub-universe is an anti-matter unverse.
Currently the size ratio of cosmic-foam bubbles to ether-foam bubbles in our universe is roughly 10^59 to 1 and increasing because of the expansion of our space. Turning the clock backward to a time when the ratio was 1 to 1, is how I try to envision the beginning of time as we know it. That is not an absolute beginning of everything; it is merely a convenient marker for defining the beginning of our universe. Before that, what is now our sub-universe would have been our super-universe. That would have been a time when matter and anti-matter existed in equal amounts at the same scale. Since then, each has shrunk relative to the other in its own time.
If there ever was a time when our universe and our sub-universe existed at the same scale (as described in the previous paragraph), both must have existed within an ether foam which was the cosmic foam of some other universe. My mind is reaching its limit when it comes to imagining our relationship to that universe.
I have mentioned only three universe---our universe, our super-universe and our sub-universe. These are but three in an infinite sequence of universes.
I believe these universe are engaged in a never-ending dance of expansion and contraction. The expansion of our sub-universe causes the expansion of our universe, and the expansion of our universe causes the expansion of our super-universe. For this to work, it is necessary for time in alternate universes to run in opposite directions. So as our universe gets older our sub-universe and our super-universe are getting younger. This suggests to me that our sub-universe is an anti-matter unverse.
Currently the size ratio of cosmic-foam bubbles to ether-foam bubbles in our universe is roughly 10^59 to 1 and increasing because of the expansion of our space. Turning the clock backward to a time when the ratio was 1 to 1, is how I try to envision the beginning of time as we know it. That is not an absolute beginning of everything; it is merely a convenient marker for defining the beginning of our universe. Before that, what is now our sub-universe would have been our super-universe. That would have been a time when matter and anti-matter existed in equal amounts at the same scale. Since then, each has shrunk relative to the other in its own time.
If there ever was a time when our universe and our sub-universe existed at the same scale (as described in the previous paragraph), both must have existed within an ether foam which was the cosmic foam of some other universe. My mind is reaching its limit when it comes to imagining our relationship to that universe.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.