Shape of Spacetime

[WHR]

First of all, I am an amateur. I'm also not here to argue or debate this simple idea that may easily be dismissed with mathematics or a fundamental law. So if you are closed minded to thought experiments that require a certain amount of speculation and imagination, this won't be for you. However, if a mathematical equation or fundamental law easily and obviously negates this idea, I welcome it.

 

I read and devour cosmological physics ideas from a variety of sources. Recently I was watching a documentary that poked into several topics...the "arrow of time" concept, entropy, matter and antimatter, and dark matter/energy. The program touched upon a female astrophysicists who many years ago was comparing the revolution speed of the planets around the sun to the revolution speed of the stars around galaxies. The data when plotted for the solar system shows a 45 degree angle graph with distant bodies moving much slower through space than the inner planets due to lower gravitational forces. The speed of stars around galaxies showed a linear plot on the graph. A straight line with distant stars from the inner SM black hole moving just as fast as inner stars (this not meaning the period of revolution the same, that would imply outer stars moving much faster). This broke with Newtonian physics and implied unaccounted for energy on the grader scale of galaxies. Ok that was interesting, but what really interested me was the graphs when coupled to the arrow of time concept and Einstein's unification of spacetime.

 

So I had a vision of how the universe, spacetime, would SEEM to look if one could model it...from the big bang until now. Accounting for the accelerated expansion, the big bang, entropy, spacetime, space curvature, event horizon, and the tendency for the known universe to be dominated by matter rather than antimatter.

 

Ok so imagine the singularity before the "BB". A single massive point. An unknown and unexplained event caused the singularity to become unstable. Within the first second a huge expansion occurred with matter and antimatter anialating one another. We know that matter won. Why? Perhaps the very thing that caused the BB is rooted in this imbalance and no matter how many times we might "replay" the BB, matter would always win out. And this led me to another thought process. Think about standing a pencil on its end. You might get it to stay that way for a short time, but eventually the table will get bumped, a door will open and cause a pressure shift in the room, etc, and the pencil will tip. This caused me to reckon that perhaps in a *matter* dominated universe, the arrow of time will always move from order to disorder, toward entropy, and in the familiar way that we see time moving.

Now hang with me. My model would have the center of the entire known universe not located IN TIME in the same location in reference to where the singularity originated. Instead of Time being the universe's 4th dimension, it is actually THE FIRST, and what any model should be based on. So the universe was born on a journey through time, not through space. So, since in English we read from left to right, imagine the BB singularity as a period on the left hand side of your screen, the future a tremendous globe on the far right side of your screen. The present an intermediate globe in the center of your screen. And much like an MRI or CAT scan takes paper thin cross sectional pictures of an object along its length, this model of the universe superimposed a slightly larger globe in increments from left to right (imagine a funnel shape made of these googleplex of progressively larger globes, the smallest point most leftward, and the ultimate sized globe (the end, full entropy) on the right. But also realize that the globes are expanding at a faster rate...so the funnel will not be cone shaped but rather more vortexlike, or like a horn.

 

So time is the progression in a particular direction (for our purpose left to right) it is also represented by the ever increasing size of each globe progression not being linear but rather logarithmic.(I'm not a math wiz but I assume this is a fitting description of the acceleration that is observed).

 

So the known universe at any given moment in history is represented by these globes, and time is pretty well depicted by the distance from "point NOW" to the singularity...and this assumes that time had been a linear progression since the singularity (that's something I can't wrap my head around, but perhaps it wasn't and when gravity was super strong near the singularity on the early universe, time might have been distorted?)

 

Ok, this model I've described may not be anything new, you tell me. But I also will suggest one more idea. The same "pencil topple" that got time moving like an arrow, from order to chaos, created a matter dominated Spacetime rather than antimatter....could it have also set the universe in a vortexlike spin or tumble THROUGH TIME?

 

What I am getting at...let's take the singularity of the BB and move along our model to a point where the universe is recognizable, big enough to map, establish reference points. Let's place a red dot on this "MRI scan segment" on the page in the center of the globe (we'll call it the universe's equator) but instead of our equator being on the horizontal plane, the rotation we're imagining is on the vertical. So as we progress out universe in time from left to right, the red reference dot moves up, reaches "north" circles the blind side of the universe (we'll call it west)....then south, then east again and we can see it rise from the bottom of the page back to the center on the "visible side"

 

SO, as the universe moves through time, it also rotates. This rotation was a random natural consequence of the imbalance of the BB, the favoring of matter over antimatter, the favoring of entropy.

 

It works like so many other forces that can be seen all around us. Look at a mushroom cloud from a large blast. The blast favors an upward distribution of the matter and energy because the earth itself pushes it that way. The matter moves up (through time) as it disperses, but it isn't a conical shape. It is funnel shaped, and in fact vortexes can usually be seen. Some imbalance in the explosion and the environment causes the matter to swell upwards in a rotational way. (I'm even less an expert on the dynamics of explosions than I am an amateur astrophysicist but I'm visualizing videos I've seen of several megaton explosions over the years). But without a doubt, vortexes are a very thematic shape in the universe, all the way from the double helix of DNA on the micro scale to the spiral of the typical galaxy.

 

Ok last thought. If space and time and thus the universe are one and the same, unified, connected....this may be a huge leap...but I'm trying to explain "dark energy" or at least the force that is causing the acceleration of the physical universe's expansion. 1) could a rotating universe moving through time in a vortex like fashion have so much stored energy (that we have underestimated) like an untwisting rubber band? My gut is that an untwisting rubber band would release more energy in its initial stages than toward the end so that seemingly falls apart.

2) since spacetime and thus the cosmos are unified, one in the same, could the singularity "still exist" (in a sense)....if the past is itself a part of the whole, and could this prehistoric gravity still be influencing the expansion of the universe across the expanse of TIME rather than space? If we decide to make time the FIRST dimension rather than the fourth, then time becomes more "visible" in a sense. This the singularity can still exist in this funnel/vortex model of the entirety of spacetime.

 

Go back to the mushroom cloud. As the matter and energy of the cloud rises, the higher elevation matter and energy (thus "later") if one could MRI cross section a mushroom cloud, would be logarithmically larger than each progressive slice moving downward. If I understand this process, it's essentially because gravity overcomes the upward and spiraling manifestation of the matter involved and disperses it. Of course I've applied no real math or computer modeling or analysis to any of this. Im just thinking and sharing online. Poke holes wherever they should be poked. Is the "exho of gravity" from the BB singularity pulling against the matter of the present and future Universe and from its distance in time (and not space) causing a mushrooming effect toward the finality?

 

But last observation. If the universe can be modelled

As I've described, spacetime and all, it looks to me a lot like the inverse of a black hole singularity. I've heard the term "white hole" but I'm not sure if this fits. But the event horizon would be that point in time where matter overcame antimatter and the tipping point was reached that allowed for time to become the dominant dimension etc.

 

Ok I'm done with my BS vision thanks for reading. If this some day wins a plagiarist the nobel prize, I want this bookmarked ;-)

 

I did want to add...all of my disjointed speculation about the singularity echoing its effects over the expanse of time, the universe moving through time as a vortex, etc...this is secondary to my attempt to visually model what the universe in 4 dimensions would look like if one could draw it or shape it with a computer simulation. My point was that time shouldn't be an afterthought (OK so let's draw the universe....ok so we have this big round sphere of matter and energy....now how do we add time?

My thought was that if you start off with time as the linear horizontal axis and then imagine a way to do this "MRI style" imaging, but rather than cross sectional slices, you would superimpose 3D spheres inside an ever expanding funnel (that would have a googleplex of superimposed spheres, since time can be infinitely sliced). So the imagery of this model was the thrust of my post. The rest is entirely layman's speculations. Even if something interesting might be there.

[somecallmegenius]

This is cool. I get what you are getting at, but I'm no astrophysicist...

 

The problem is not with your idea, it is with the postulates on which it has been based. The idea that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is still in its infancy, and therefore very weak..

Personally, I find the supporting evidence for such accelerated expansion to be very weak currently. Even with the recent evidence provided by gravitational lensing of distant quasars (see this article: http://www.space.com/15247-universe-acceleration-dark-energy-quasars.html), there are many assumptions that go into the calculations involved in determining changes in frequency of electromagnetic waves emitted by such quasars, there just so many currently unpredictable factors that go into such calculations, that they render them barely useful. Such factor include: the estimation of the curvature of space-time between such quasars and Earth (huge amounts of speculation apply here), gravitational redshift effect (from quasar to Earth), the doppler effect, and other effects which may be yet unknown.

 

Due to all the above, as elegant as your idea may seem, I don't necessarily like what it is based on...

 

But despite all the above, it is still possible that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that your idea is plausible. It would require a much more knowledgable scientist than me to know that. Especially, since I am speaking way out of my field here...

[WHR]

Thanks somecallmegenius.

 

Even if you take away the idea of the universe accelerating (which I would personally love to see disproven because it just makes no sense, and currently requires us to "make stuff up" to fit the mathematics i.e dark energy....I still feel pretty good about visualizing the shape of spacetime and the universe from the outset of the BB til now and projected into the future in this left to right ever expanding super imposed globe model. The only difference being that if you don't believe the expansion is accelerating, we can model the universe growth linearly so that the shape is truly conical from left to right. Or, if you think that the old idea that the universe is actually slowing down its expansion and will eventually "crunch" when gravity wins the battle, then perhaps the model of the universe would be still a singularity, a conical expansion, a point at which the limit has been reached, and then a sort or Rorschach or mirror image of the cone, still going left to right, back to another singularity, and so on infinitum. This would be a cyclical or wavelike model in 4 dimensions. Somewhat sinusoidal (another natural geometry that I find appealing.) Actually it would quite remind me of a steady carrier amplitude modulated EM wave to be honest or at least how textbooks depict them

[somecallmegenius]

Thanks somecallmegenius.

 

Even if you take away the idea of the universe accelerating (which I would personally love to see disproven because it just makes no sense, and currently requires us to "make stuff up" to fit the mathematics i.e dark energy....I still feel pretty good about visualizing the shape of spacetime and the universe from the outset of the BB til now and projected into the future in this left to right ever expanding super imposed globe model. The only difference being that if you don't believe the expansion is accelerating, we can model the universe growth linearly so that the shape is truly conical from left to right. Or, if you think that the old idea that the universe is actually slowing down its expansion and will eventually "crunch" when gravity wins the battle, then perhaps the model of the universe would be still a singularity, a conical expansion, a point at which the limit has been reached, and then a sort or Rorschach or mirror image of the cone, still going left to right, back to another singularity, and so on infinitum. This would be a cyclical or wavelike model in 4 dimensions. Somewhat sinusoidal (another natural geometry that I find appealing.) Actually it would quite remind me of a steady carrier amplitude modulated EM wave to be honest or at least how textbooks depict them

 

All of the possibilities you stated are currently possible. Simply because the scientific community requires much more data and possibly better observation methods in order to confirm details about the expansion of the universe. However, as I previously said, I do believe that your visualization method of the universe over time is interesting...

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations. Please take a moment to read through the special rules for that forum. Thanks

[WHR]

Why is a proposed visual model for the universe that is pretty much fitting with mainstream ideas about the universe (accelerated expansion, entropy, spacetime, dark energy, singularities, big bang, etc) and also touches upon other mainstream ideas that haven't been outright dismissed and are still talked about in mainstream circles (big crunch, linear expansion) considered a "speculation" thread?

 

I didn't propose anything that falls short of accepted mainstream concepts. I just proposed a visual model that helps to see all of those concepts and tie them together.

 

But then, when I visualized my model, it opened my eyes to questions that might be considered speculations, but isn't that what "theoretical" physics is all about, in fact isn't it ALL pretty much speculation based on observations???

 

Do me a favor. If this thread is indeed only fitting to be hidden away in the broom closet, go ahead and delete it entirely and I will also delete my account. I don't mind criticism of any specific points but I really don't care for censorship, that's not what science is about.

 

To be clear, I did not propose that the universe is actually a big potato and that we are living in one of the eyes. I didn't propose a model that shows how the big bang took 7 days to happen. I didn't claim that I found the fountain of youth in my back yard.

 

But I'm pretty up on why there is a "catch all" forum called "speculation". It's the "trash box" file for the forum. It's a catch all that prevents the place from looking totally censorious and closed minded, but it's kind of like the room where the crazy uncle lives and any idea from making a fussion reaction with yeast and toilet paper to whatever other wild idea is put there. No thanks.

[A Tripolation]

But your post does violate mainstream physics. There is no "point NOW" across the universe. Time is a local variable. Saying it isn't goes against special relativity.

 

And a dimension is simply a mathematical indice that we use to specify a particle's true location/movement in given framework. (x, y, z, t) is really no different than (t, x, y, z) as long as you are not simply transposing the values.

 

My gut is that an untwisting rubber band would release more energy in its initial stages than toward the end so that seemingly falls apart.

2) since spacetime and thus the cosmos are unified, one in the same, could the singularity "still exist" (in a sense)....if the past is itself a part of the whole, and could this prehistoric gravity still be influencing the expansion of the universe across the expanse of TIME rather than space? If we decide to make time the FIRST dimension rather than the fourth, then time becomes more "visible" in a sense. This the singularity can still exist in this funnel/vortex model of the entirety of spacetime.

 

This is the problem I have with your post. I can barely discern what that means. In cosmology, the scientists use very precise terms and maths to show exactly what they mean. I understand that you're a self-described laymen, but it would be beneficial to the rest of us if you took more care in wording your post. Even a diagram made in MSPaint can be helpful. And then we can see where you might be going astray and help you understand why your idea might not be right.

 

From what I can tell, it's not right because it's pulling a lot of stuff from random places. A lot of "what-if's" and "maybe that happens's." These aren't necessarily bad qualities, but they do not belong in cosmology.

 

It's not my intention to be condescending;I would simply like to help explain our side of the story so that we may open up a meaningful dialogue in the subject.

[WHR]

"point now" (a term obviously that I made up) doesn't have to violate special relativity. I as an observer in my local point in time and space do indeed have a "point now". You on your end of spacetime, wherever you may be, have a "point now". Our "point nows" may not be synchronized, but nothing in my model requires that. You may in fact be existing along spacetime in the superimposed, slightly smaller spacetime globe slightly to the left of my slightly expanded globe to the right (using the english left to right system as the logic for the arrow of time). We could exist in slightly different spacetime globes in relation to one another, or, the same globe, or in fact many globes apart (remember I do recognize the infinite nature of dissecting time, that's why I referred to my "MRI modeling" system of dissection as "googleplexes" of "slices" or globes.

 

And I concede that toward the end of my original post that I did some speculating. Perhaps I didn't explain things clearly, and I won't argue that I'm wrong. It was a free flow of thought. But the overall thrust of modeling the 4 dimensions in the manner that I speak, I think, is pretty elegant and easy to grasp. I see no harm in taking the imagery and exploring questions that it might facilitate. Sweeping a topic

Into a broom closet just because it isn't perfect is hardly the way to handle it, at least not until the wheat and chaffe are openly discussed. Essentially, I do not think it is fair to have a fairly reasonable concept (let's assign a reasonability scale of 1-10 and say that at least part of my conception warrants a "7") outright dismissed, then dumped in the rubbish pile with the the illuminati/new world order threads. That's a tremendous leap.

 

The trouble with this style of censorship is that STEPHEN FLIPPING HAWKING himself in the flesh could come on this site, under a pseudonym, post an idea that he just floated, and because a moderator of unknown background, origin, or expertise comes along and decides its poppycock he may very well put the thoughts of the most brilliant man on the planet in the cellar. And Stephen Hawking would be laughing his butt off at this website.

 

Of course Stephen Hawking has better things to do, and I don't have the intellect to shine Stephen Hawkkng's wheelchair....but the point is still valid.

 

You see, I'm not some kook who thinks he's solved the entire riddle of the universe or has evidence to expose The Bush family as satan's spawn. I'm just a guy who had a neat idea and wanted to talk about it. Unfortunately in the blink of an eye my idea was buried without that opportunity. That's not science, it's censorship. Peer review can't be done by one individual.

 

But your post does violate mainstream physics. There is no "point NOW" across the universe. Time is a local variable. Saying it isn't goes against special relativity.

 

And a dimension is simply a mathematical indice that we use to specify a particle's true location/movement in given framework. (x, y, z, t) is really no different than (t, x, y, z) as long as you are not simply transposing the values.

 

 

 

This is the problem I have with your post. I can barely discern what that means. In cosmology, the scientists use very precise terms and maths to show exactly what they mean. I understand that you're a self-described laymen, but it would be beneficial to the rest of us if you took more care in wording your post. Even a diagram made in MSPaint can be helpful. And then we can see where you might be going astray and help you understand why your idea might not be right.

 

From what I can tell, it's not right because it's pulling a lot of stuff from random places. A lot of "what-if's" and "maybe that happens's." These aren't necessarily bad qualities, but they do not belong in cosmology.

 

It's not my intention to be condescending;I would simply like to help explain our side of the story so that we may open up a meaningful dialogue in the subject.

 

And this is the problem I have. First, I just read your reply again, and from the very start, the language insinuates that I'm wrong....so what you want me to do is draw a picture for you, so that you can come along and tell me why I'm wrong. Nowhere on your reply did you say that I should draw a picture so you can tell me where I am wrong, and "perhaps" point at concepts that may be in fact right or at least noteworthy ideas.

 

You already decided I was wrong when I pointed out that I'm not an astrophysicist. This does not mean I'm not a scientist or that I'm a layperson. I'm in fact a chemist. I have no Nobel prize and I do work in the field of applied science and not research or theoretical, but nevertheless I'm a scientist. At this point we aren't arguing the subject, we are arguing my right to even be pondering such a lofty subject.

My hero is Michael Faraday. That says it all.

And my iPhone does not give me the option to post a

Picture on this site, not the mobile version. I'll look into posting a picture from home.

 

Also, the very last statement that says "I'd like to explain OUR side of the story IS in fact condescending. It is an us vs them statement. Who is "our"?

[WHR]

OK so I took the liberty of drawing my 4 dimensional model of space time. A picture is worth 1000 words, but unfortunately I don't have the computing power to superimpose an infinite number of segments or globes or spheres to represent every moment of history and the future...if further explanation of the model is needed I will be glad to expand later. Does anyone have a duster? The cobwebs in this cellar are rather annoying.

I also apologize for the flipped image. My tablet app wouldn't let me fix it.

[swansont]

The trouble with this style of censorship is that STEPHEN FLIPPING HAWKING himself in the flesh could come on this site, under a pseudonym, post an idea that he just floated, and because a moderator of unknown background, origin, or expertise comes along and decides its poppycock he may very well put the thoughts of the most brilliant man on the planet in the cellar. And Stephen Hawking would be laughing his butt off at this website.

 

Of course Stephen Hawking has better things to do, and I don't have the intellect to shine Stephen Hawkkng's wheelchair....but the point is still valid.

 

You see, I'm not some kook who thinks he's solved the entire riddle of the universe or has evidence to expose The Bush family as satan's spawn. I'm just a guy who had a neat idea and wanted to talk about it. Unfortunately in the blink of an eye my idea was buried without that opportunity. That's not science, it's censorship. Peer review can't be done by one individual.

!

Moderator Note

If Stephen Hawking or some other luminary decided to post an idea on an internet forum, chances are it would be a rigorously argued and based on solid physics ground. Even this, without a way to test and idea or evidence supporting it, it would not yet be an accepted mainstream concept, i.e. it would still be speculation.

 

Nobody has yet prevented you from discussing your idea: the posts exist and the thread is still open. However, complaining about illusory censorship, worrying out loud about the thread's location and labeling criticism as condescension are off-topic, and that's something that will get a thread shut down. So I strongly suggest you get back to discussing your idea. Responding to modnotes in-thread is also considered off-topic.

[WHR]

Is laughing acceptable? Just checking.