Was it Novikov's evolution of the universe? He wrote stuff about white holes.

Starobinsky and Zel'dovich proposed a 3d torus shape of the universe, with a central singularity, a wormhole.

Hello- I looked at Novikov and I don't think it is the author I am looking for. I will check out the other two - that sounds very much like what I read. Thanks kindly for your reply. I'll let you know.

Hello - I have found the author I was looking for: Itzhak Bentov. He was actually an Israeli scientist and not a cosmologist or astrophysicist - as I thought. An inventor of medical equipment and he has a very interesting backgroud, accomplishments and endeavors. Wikipedia has his bio information. The two books I was looking for are "A Cosmic Book" and "A Brief Tour of Higher Conciousness" and another that I had forgot about "Stalking the Wild Pendulum." All three are fascinating (at least for me) although some may find them more philosophical/spiritual and theoretical than actual "science." I highly recommend them. Thank you Raymond.

Stalking the Wild Pendulum. — Mason

There you go! I was just contemplating the 3d torus. I have a similar view. With a different torus though. "Stalking with the pendulum" What a powerful image of what western man is doing!

He looks an exceedingly interesting man. And charismatic, to boot.



Intensely spiritual guy, who also happened to be the creator of Israel's first rocket.

I mistakenly read "Stalking with the Pendulum". I imagined people (scientist) looking at things secretely while holding a pendulum and scribbling down their observations, while counting the times a pendulum swings... Instead the wild pendulum is stalked. Evokes wild images. Even a seed for a painting maybe. A space full of wild pendulums. PEÑDULA.

Good looking guy, by the way.

Stalking the Wild Pendulum — Mason

Professor Cuthbert Calculus

Haha! That's what I mean. Professor Zonnebloem, following his wild pendulum everywhere.

Haha! That's what I mean. Professor Zonnebloem, following his wild pendulum everywhere. — Raymond

:smile:

Well, what about it? Does time stop as the pendulum changes direction? :-) I ordered the books to re-read them but I do recall that his theory of the "torus-like" universe seems as viable as any other? The "Higher Conciousness" book was a bit far-out for me - but I am of the belief that the universe DOES have conciiousness.

His daughter wrote a bio about him - but it is OOP.

Does the universe bear the seal/the touch of humankind? Every culture leaves its own unique signature on the things that it does - a wheel is a wheel no doubt but I reckon that an expert can tell the difference between an Armenian wheel and a Nigerian wheel, so on. Likewise, a universe created by humans should bear the characteristics, deducible, of humanity. Are there are any telltale signs that yes, the universe was the handiwork of (a) human(s)?

The 3d torus has a singularity at the center. A wormhole with a tiny throat. On both sides of the mouth a universe can explode into existence. A universe evolving around the donut will end up at the other side, fall in the black hole and reappear as a new universe. It falls in a black hole and reappears from a white hole. This approach has various difficulties. There is doubt aout the claim that the universe is infinite in size. The large wavelengths seem to be missing when looked at the CMBR (of gravitational waves). In an infinite universe (which is infinite in extent even at the big bang) all wavelengths should be produced. A fairy firm clue pointing at a bounded universe. An infinite universe is just prejustice. Just like the Earth was once thought to be flat.

It's more likey the universe is a closed 3d structure, to which all matter is contained. Two of these structures could have been realized on both sides of a 4d donut. Equal amounts of basic matter/antimatter have arranged themselves in matter and antimatter. I have asked about this on a physics forum:

"know general relativity is confined to three spatial dimensions. But there is nothing that prevents the existence of more of them.

So I thought, could it be that matter is confined to our three dimensional space, which started out around a tiny mouth (singularity) of a 4 dimensional open torus? If the outside of the torus is cut open, matter can accelerate away from the mouth, as the mouth of a torus is negatively curved.

Just imagine, in the 2d case, a torus that extends to infinity on the cut open outsides. There could emerge two circles from the mouth, inflating away from it. Normal matter on one, antimatter on the other. Afterwards, when matter has accelerated towards infinity, there is room for a new big bang.

So, quantum field fluctuations on the mouth (virtual particles) could get excited (real particles) by the negative curvature. Like Hawking radiation around black holes, virtual states could get pushed into reality by the negative curvature (which causes negative repelling gravity).

So, if we restrict ourselves to two dimensions, we can imagine a 2d torus. The inside part has negative curvature. The saddle shape can be seen very well around the throat. If two particles are placed there, they will accelerate outwards. Can't the same happen to quantum fluctuations? I mean, can't the negative curvature promote the fields to fields containing excitation? In popular language, can the virtual particle pairs (the vacuum bubbles) be "pulled" (or pushed) away from each other like two real particles are moving towards each other because of the positive curvature of spacetime? Is it possible that this can happen in the two directions of the mouth? Say matter is confined to a closed line on the 2d torus. One that's wrapped around the central throat. Can't we imagine two circles with matter on them, moving away from the throat? The circles, representing our universe and possibly a mirror one on the other side, grow in diameter, so from within the circle (universe( all matter seems to move away from each other. In the beginning this could have happened with inflationary speed. When the particles are "realized", they cause a positive curvature, counteracting the negative one, ending inflation. When matter the universe expands, negative overall curvature will return when the universe is big enough. So matter concentrations will start to accelerate from accelerate away from each other again, like it did in the beginning. The throat in the center will then have the right conditions to cause a new bang.

Pretty far-fetched maybe, but I just want to know what the flaw in my reasoning is. I can't see any. We only have to find a way to confine matter to a 3d space, while laying in the totality of the whole. It explains dark energy rather nicely. Even "its" development over time."

I got only one comment:

-You're basically describing the dilaton [sic] of the already empirically refuted Kaluza-Klein theory. 

 My reply was:

-How so? The dilaton emerges by putting the A-field in the realm of a curled up mathematical dimension. I merely state the existence of an extra dimension to place our 3d universe on. If the universe moves over this space all matter starts to accelerate initially and later on. In between matter halts. 

No further comments were given. The question is (understandably, but disappointingly also) closed now because being off topic. But together with two more basic fields than quarks and leptons, it offers an understanding of dark energy, the seemingly asymmetry between matter and antimatter, and post/past big bangs.

The pendulum can be placed near any physical process. Counting how many times it penduled, it gives you the quantified concept of time. Einstein mentally placed pendulums on an axis. The time axis. An object standing still still speeds with c through spacetime. The speed of an object is always c. An infinite c would imply that all is happening at the same time. There would be no cause and effect. There would be nothing.

Does time stop as the pendulum changes direction? :-) — Mason

Why do you think that? We cannot see if the pendulum goes forward in time or backwards, if the pendulum is ideal (so, for example, its amplitude grows smaller).

I didn't mean to imply I believe that time stops but more asking in general what is time? Can time go forward and backwards? I have - in my own very limited knowledge of physics - believed that time is simply the expansion of the universe.

Considering the "big bang" theory (which I do not subscribe to) - did time exist before the singularity expanded and did the space that it expanded into exist - or is that space created as the universe expands? If we believe that the universe is expanding then our reference point for time would be measured from the point of its "creation" until its current state of expansion, or at any referential points during that expansion, and therefore can only go forward (expansion). When we see the light from a distant star we are viewing the image of something from the past - from back in time - if we could get a close-up view of that image we would be viewing history of events that occured then - but that has already passed - all we are seeing is an image. Could I now interject myself into that image and change some event, i.e. time travel? All I can do is see the image - I am not able to participate in it.

The earth orbits the sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy which is expanding into space always moving in one direction - each finite moment of that movement is an image in time so to speak. If we could travel faster than the light from that image we could view some event from the past - but so far as we know that is impossible - and even if we could how could we insert ourselves into it? So, for me, time travel is theoretically impossible but perhaps I don't fully understand the concept of worm-holes or "bending the fabric of time-space" - way beyond my comprehension.

Further - if the theory of expansion/contraction of the universe is considered - during the contraction would time then go "backwards?" This is why, in my very uneducated view, the idea of "recirculating" universe as you have mentioned - although over my head - makes much more sense. The current explanations being posited about "dark matter" - to me - are not viable. We know that the universe has much more space than matter - even within the minute atomic particles the space between them is realtively much greater than the size of the particles. So as of now "space" is something beyond human comprehension To diverge to a simpleton's view - Space is the canvas on which the universe is painted - everything is a concoction of time, space and energy. The time/space continuum - space could exist without time but can time exist without space?

I apologize for my rather simplistic notions. I would enjoy your recommendations for further study/reading and thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.

Only in so far as our perception. I did not mean to imply that hunans created the universe. Only that I believe there is a higher conciousness to all of creation and I am not necessarily speaking of a "god" or omnipotent being - but a higher "intelligence" so to speak. If we delve into what we call human self-awareness there is something more than just our five senses. Some say that "mind is universal" - what is that mind we all seem to share and does it pervade the entire universe? Human existence is surely a puzzle - are we just biological entities or something more? Why do we question who and what we are? Perhaps I am silly to believe in the meta-physical but there is a sense of something more than this body my conciousness inhabits.
" Through methodic doubt, Descartes determined that almost everything could be doubted. Although unlikely, it’s at least possible that we are in a cosmic dream or being deceived by a powerful demon, and so we cannot know with absolute certainty that the world around us actually exists. This is where the cogito argument enters, to save the day. After doubting everything in the external world, Descartes turns to attempting to doubt his internal word, that of his own mind. Descartes found that although he could doubt many things about himself, one thing that he could not doubt, is that he exists."

Further - if the theory of expansion/contraction of the universe is considered - during the contraction would time then go "backwards?" — Mason

It's a strange coincidence. In a comment on another thread (if it can be proven that time is an illusion) I wanted to say that this view was once propagated by Stephen Hawking. I think his wheelchair stood in reverse when he thought that. Only before the big bang time went up and down. It had no direction yet. The was a quasi periodic motion of virtual matter fluctuating inside the four dimensional throat of the torus. It's not a closed torus, but open on the outside. The mouth of the doughnut is negatively curved spatially, so the matter on the 3d sub structure can expand on it. One universe on both sides of the mouth. A universe and it's mirror universe. One space dimension is a mirrored dimension. Hence left/right asymmetry in the weak interaction (which isn't fundamental). Once the particles have been pushed into real existence on both sides of the mouth, they have an influence on the space which makes it curve positively. Thereby ending inflation. The two universes contain only irreversible processes, and time runs forward only. The 3d universes move farther from the 4d singularity (a kind of wormhole) on the 4d substrate. When the universes have moved sufficient distance away from the singularity, the substrate 4d space becomes negatively curved again (the positive curvature influence of the particles gets diluted) and the particles in both universes start to accelerate away from each other again. The central singularity gets more and more negatively curved and... bang. A new big bang.

So before us there is an infinity of universes, all with their own temporal start, and behind us (in 4d space, at the mouth of the doughnut) a new big bang will follow. What is time? You can position a periodic process near an irreversible process. Irreversible processes can't go backwards. Which means, if you reverse all motion, you can see the process is reversed. You can't turn around all motion in the universe. This would lead to Hawking's nightmare. Why should all particles reverse their motion if the universe starts contracting? The origin of irreversibility lies in the reversible motion on the singularity.
So the advantages of the doughnut and the two basic matter fields are obvious. An explanation of the matter/antimatter symmetry (in both universes are equal amounts of base matter/antimatter), an explanation of dark energy, an explanation of left/right asymmetry, an explanation of the origin of time, and a cyclic model of subsequent big bangs, without a contracting universe *big crunch becomes a big rip). That is sufficient...


In between the singularity and infinity, the interesting things happen!

:cool:

Raymond - that is fascinating stuff! Thank you for taking the time to post. When I was in 6th grade, after being introduced to Einstein's ToR, I wrote a "science fiction" story about a man who leaves earth in a spaceship that attains a speed faster than light and he returns to earth as a baby. Obviousy I'm no Kurt Vonnegut but the teacher did give me a "A." :-) At university I took a basic Quantum Physics course but the teacher was Chinese and his English was not very good which made the subject even more difficult - nevertheless a peak into the weirdness of particle physics. When Stalking the Wild Pendulum was gifted to me I became entralled with Bentov's explanation of the universe which rings so much more true to me than the big bang theory. Your posts ahve been very thought provoking for me.

I have recently been investigating the premise that the speed of light may not be constant throughout the universe - I know this has been posited for some years now but I only just read of it - imagine how our knowledge of the universe is going to change - perhaps exponentially in the coming years! Alas, according to Michio Kaku we are only a type 0 civilization.....

What current books might you recommend to learn more about your post?

I just woke up and with my weary head and saw your answer. Imagine to come back like a baby! I actually think that it happens... The theory I tried to explain above is a theory that sprang up in my mind. Me too was not satisfied with the big bang model. I broke free, so to speak, from the constraints that were put on me during my physics study (I assume you study it too and I have the impression you study it out of a longing for understanding, like I did! A well-paid job was never my motivation...but if you can use it to buy a nice house, why not?). The story of general relativity is confined to 4d spacetime but there is nothing or no one that forbids the existence of an extra space dimension. String theory gives a whole bunch of them (tiny, but still). The whole story about inflation, cyclic big bangs, matter/antimatter asymmetry, etc. seems so obviously true if you introduce one extra space dimension. The problem is how to confine particles on the 3d space, while it finds itself in a 4d space. I think though that particles are not points. Neither strings. I view them as structures of space itself. What is space? I think space is just made of hidden variables, the ones encountered in interpretation of QM. And there are just two basic quantum fields, from which all quarks and leptons are made. Pretty non-standard. The torus model looks a lot like what sprang up in my mind. But it has its difficulties (of course I say that!).

To learn more about my post...There are no books yet about that theory. About FTL: "João Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light", a book by an anarchistic mind in physics, written vividly ("universe on speed"), iconoclastic (against holy cows, against the icons), and very informative! I enjoyed reading it, and remember disagreeing with something (I don't remember but I look it up). As long as the speed of light is not infinite, I'm happy though.

he could not doubt, is that he exists — Mason

An sit?

Quid sit?

Quale sit?

I am awaiting your book Raymond! Meantime I will check out Mageuijo. My original post turned into a quite unexpected and fascinating exchange (on your part.) ;-)
Cheers!

Cheers Mason! Enjoy the fantastic journey of life, and all the epiphanies still to come! :smile:

The torus model looks a lot like what sprang up in my mind. But it has its difficulties (of course I say that!). — Raymond

Sounds to me, by torus you mean a geometric model. Would you consider the magnetic fields of planets, stars as torus? Black holes like the ones in the center of many galaxies appear to be torus like from a great distance but they are motivated into that appearance by equatorial accretion disks due to gravity and polar bidirectional outward streams of charged particles in a polarized field.

Sounds to me, by torus you mean a geometric model. Would you consider the magnetic fields of planets, stars as torus? — magritte

Yes. They look like torus shapes.

Black holes like the ones in the center of many galaxies appear to be torus like from a great distance but they are motivated into that appearance by equatorial accretion disks due to gravity and polar bidirectional outward streams of charged particles in a polarized field. — magritte

I don't think they are torus shaped. The accretion disc and
particles shot out might be a sign the black hole rotates. All bodies in the universe rotate, so. A rotation of a black hole causes space around it to twist (frame-dragging, Lens-Thirring effect, if you're interested) and this induces an asymmetry. If there is matter in rest around a rotating hole, it will attract it and and cause it to move in the direction of rotation also. But this is not the cause for the rotation of the galaxy. It might be that the rotation of the hole (which has a circle singularity) is not parallel to the rotation of the galaxy (though I'm not sure; maybe they coincide, like the rotation of the Sun and the planets, and now that I think about it, the hole probably has the same direction of rotation indeed).
There is still a cylindrical symmetry, like a torus has, but the hole in the torus doesn’t correspond to a hole in a hole. The matter around these mega monsters falls in and starts to rotate faster and faster around it. At the two poles (not generated by the hole itself, as it's charge neutral) there is mass ejected. So, the matter rotating around it is not accelerated towards the poles by an internal magnetic field but somehow this matter creates its own projecting fields. Once inside it falls to the circularity.

The torus shape in the model mentioned is a model for the complete shape of our universe. The whole 3d shape is a closed 3d torus shape with in the center a hole from which universes arise and travel around it, to arrive on the other side again. The acceleration of the universe was not known yet though. But indirect measurements on gravitational waves suggest the universe is a closed structure indeed.

I'm hungry for a doughnut!

The torus I mean is geometrical indeed. But 4d spatial (well, actually 7d, of which 3 small Planck-sized one). And open on the outside, to allow space in both directions of the mouth to reach for infinity, so it's not a real torus actually.

Considering the "big bang" theory (which I do not subscribe to) - did time exist before the singularity expanded and did the space that it expanded into exist - or is that space created as the universe expands? If we believe that the universe is expanding then our reference point for time would be measured from the point of its "creation" until its current state of expansion, or at any referential points during that expansion, and therefore can only go forward (expansion). When we see the light from a distant star we are viewing the image of something from the past - from back in time - if we could get a close-up view of that image we would be viewing history of events that occurred then - but that has already passed - all we are seeing is an image. Could I now interject myself into that image and change some event, i.e. time travel? All I can do is see the image - I am not able to participate in it. — Mason

You're not alone! The Big Bang was quickly embraced from the beginning because it gave a scientific and at the same time a theologically satisfying explanation for the origin of the universe. Yet to many enthusiasts it felt like a stretch of imagination. This was further stoked by the even more fantastic second bang or just a smooth inflation.

When astronomical observations started to come in, the numbers just did not add up. The stars proved more than twice the theoretical age of the universe. Oops. This gave rise to a wide spread amateur movement that The Big Bang Never Happened. After years of refinement ("refinement"?) the age of the universe was raised from 8 billion years and the stars were squeezed down from up to 20 billion years to more or less 13.8 billion years. :party:

Hello Magritte - thank you for your comment. Yes, I have an interest in cosmology but don't really keep up with the current pervasive views and theories so I probably dated myself with my statement - I'm sure cosmologists have moved past it but I still hear it referred to by many. Even when I first heard the BB theory when i was quite young and had no knowledge of science it simply did not ring true to me. When I was gifted Bentovs book (as discussed in this thread) his explanation (although now dated) - and further elucidated by Raymond - makes much more sense. I also have "theological" views - as I mentioned I believe in a higher intelligence - but that is for a different discussion and don't want to to mix it with the scientific here.

And now -along those lines - the "dark matter" speculations seem specious to me. I refer to "space" in my comment - what is space and how did it originate? I suppose that will be the next great breakthrough if we can answer the question. In a very simplistic and perhaps whimsical (?) way I said "Space is the canvas or screen upon which the universe is painted or projected."
It is fascinating now that the super-telescopes are able to see so much more and actually map the structure/position of the galaxies within our visible universe. How far will they have to see to "figure it out?" What will be the final limit/boundary - if any - of our universe? Meditating on the sheer vastness of the universe is mind-blowing!

This was further stoked by the even more fantastic second bang or just a smooth inflation. — magritte

This is the first bang, followed by the hot bang. What's wrong with it? Where it says stars are 20 billion years old? Do you have a link?

And now -along those lines - the "dark matter" speculations seem specious to me. I refer to "space" in my comment - what is space and how did it originate? I — Mason

Why do you think dark matter speculation is specious?

What's space? What's it's nature? Good question. It seems that in between matter. It can be the seen as the stuff making interactions possible. If a particle doesn't interact it seems to disperse all over space. The wavefunction, that is. It could be that the wavefunction itself is space. Hidden variables constituting it. Upon interaction it collapses and disperses again. It's impossible to describe the curvature by graviton exchange, so it seems. General relativity and quantum field theory describe interaction in a fundamentally different way, so.

No, I don't mean "dark matter" as a "thing" but the way it is being explained. Obviously there is something there - I like "the stuff making interactions possible.." So, the "substrate" of matter so to speak?

No, I don't mean "dark matter" as a "thing" but the way it is being explained — Mason

It can be explained as a variation in gravity strength also so not real matter. Do you have a preference?

This is the first bang, followed by the hot bang. What's wrong with it? Where it says stars are 20 billion years old? Do you have a link? — Raymond

You would have to read a critical but fair history of modern astronomy to get a picture of how the current theories evolved against the background of slowly accumulating observational results. Back then it was war between powerful and prestigious mathematical theorists hanging on to Einstein's coat tails and young unknown astronomers whose painstaking observations were put to doubt by the lack of agreement with grandiose theoretical speculations. Lerner's book even if obsoleted by later results makes for an interesting read.

As for the early scramble for the oldest stars, I'm afraid I've misplaced my notes from the 80's and arXiv.org doesn't go back that far in astronomy. But this article on Methuselah gives a flavor on a smaller scale.