Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity treats space-time as a unified field. Space for much of the course
of the physics was regarded as a real substance albeit thin rather than nothing
at all. At time = zero in a big bang paradigm with general relativity spaces
necessarily is infinitely curved to a singular point of effective
non-existence. Mass and energy are requisite for the curvature of space-time
with gravity in G.R.
Physical processes can be modeled with time-space
reversibility. If gravity did not exist in the early universe then the
curvature of space-time shouldn't equal zero--the inference is that the
beginning of the Universe would not be at time = zero but a little later instead.
The tardy universe context can be overcome with hyperinflation theory
evidently.
Immediately after Time equaled
zero (along with infinitely curved space) decayed or released its grip, or the
word to begin was issued, an inflation of mass-energy and space-time developed
for a small fraction of a second and in the absence of gravity (that didn't
come into existence until a little later) the Universe increased its size
remarkably. Space-time unpacked or decompressed quite a bit-it was the
proverbial size of a grapefruit now- and the energy of the universe eventually
converted substantially into mass. Apparently, when infinitely compacted, mass
is entirely converted to energy-mass unification. Infinitely compacted space
has no time or motion and has tremendous potential energy and mass.
What is wrong with this excellent
picture of space conceptually? In effect general relativity describes the
relationship of mass and energy along with steady-state quantum spacing instead
of space itself. Space itself is a volume of nothing. Mass and energy are the
something described by general relativity, and the quantification of space-time
curvature is the convention used to describe steady-state mass-energy
relationships.
Spatial volume itself is nothing
at all. It is a remarkable philosophical point for me at least that every sort
of infinity exists in space at every point. Space is infinite simultaneous with
being nothing at all and not existing anywhere. Sartre called space non-being,
however non-being can apply to absence as a condition instead of the physical
fact of spatial volume.
The quantification of mass-energy
relationships with general relativity is fine enough and effective yet I think
the implications for error in treating the quantum field of mass-energy of the
Universe is substantial. Vacuum energy for one thing, or virtual particle
energy is considered as arising from nothing rather than from a subtler quantum
configuration of mass and energy.
Like the force-carrying particles
of the sub-atomic realm the macro physical universe as gaps and spacing
configured by physical protocols of spin, momentum, quantum mass and so forth.
The discrete nature of a quantum field is at once pluralistic and a continuum
of monism. The mass-energy field initial endowment of the Universe may expand
and smooth itself out through entropy yet it does logically seem to be
something like a complex entanglement of knots that eventually unravel
transforming into a sheet or membrane. That membrane may be at the opposite end
of infinite initial compactness, yet it exists in the absolute nothingness of
space.
Perhaps each Universe membrane
replete with its configuration of dimensions has an initial quantum value of
energy. One must wonder if there is variability in the quantity of mass-energy
that can be initially bound at a singularity such that the scale of potential
expansion varies. If black holes are a comparable measure then
Universe-singularities too might have different initial quantum value for
possible scalar field increase.
Transforming Einstein's General
Relativity to a paradigm treating space curvature as macro-quantum mass-energy
relationships might be a way to renormalize the philosophical
criterion of space logically. What is missing is a theory of quantum gravity
explaining the metric of general relativity as a subtler microcosmic
event-process relationship without invoking space-time.
A Universe regarded as quantum
mass-energy embedded in the nothingness of space, finite in contrast to the
infinity of nothingness of space-in-itself could take a variety of forms. The
spherical universe arising from a singularity seems most logically
satisfactory-especially as gravity seems to draw mass into 3 dimensional
spheres such as planets. General Relativity allows gravity to reduce Universal
mass to a singularity at Time = zero yet if the mass energy of the Universe is
compacted to a size smaller than a graviton maybe the power of gravity no
longer exists letting the inherent energy of the Universe expand. General relativity
does not evidently treat the force-carrying quantum of gravity different from
space-time.
If there were four spatial
dimensions perhaps gravity would compact mass into hyper-cubes. String
theorists have developed the idea of membranes in an 11 dimensional Universe
and given thought to a meta-Universal 'Bulk' mother-of-all-Universes
field with 3-dimensional membrane universes drifting about in the greater
dimensional Bulk Meta-verse-what Dr. Mario Gasperini in 'Before the
Big Bang' described as a perturbative field with virtual energy
from which matter might coalesce and form into an equal yet opposite Universe
before the big bang and medial singularity between Universes (something like
the narrow point of an hourglass).
Steinhardt and Turok developed
the concept of membrane Universes that collide acting somewhat like a Big Bang
without a singularity. I think it's possible to develop the idea of a membrane
Universe without so many extra-dimensions as String Theory.
Strings on a membrane surface may
be a basic invariant form of texture flux in the energy-mass of the Universal
field. Gravity could be a subtler flux relation of the basic Universe-membrane
that arises in the history of the Universe, and perhaps will fade out one day
too when unknown quantum phase changes occur.
Cyclical membrane Universes in a
Bulk Mother-of-all-Universes field without space-time locality (or would there
be space-time locality and general relativity in a Bulk hyper-dimensional field
of all-possible Universes arising?) are interesting things to consider.
Seemingly overlooked is the idea of a single membrane Universe with strings
embedded in absolute nothingness without a perturbative vacuum
providing an unlimited electrical supply for free.
A Universe membrane field
continuum of energy and mass without the space-time as a substance parameter of
general relativity ought to be considered within the headlong rush to
extrapolate greater and more complex recursive causal explanations for the mechanics
of the physical cosmos. Perhaps a single membrane 3-D Universe field could
account for phenomena such as dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the
Universe. Could the field itself have subtle form changes in relation to the
configuration of solid-state forms? Might the spacing of one-dimensional
strings change in the field over time in a quantifiable way, or could a
non-quantum continuum of expansion occur with entropy invoking something like
Boyle's law of gases to draw mass-energy of the membrane into the oblivion of
nothingness at a quickening, competitive rate?
Whatever the original field
of Being is, variegation in the form of its attributes described with
quantification within a monistic Universe of mass and energy might
reduce to the classic philosophical problems of being and nothingness existing
since Parmenides. That mass could be reduced to infinitely small size as
if scale and quantified attributes were stages of temporality on the way
presents innumerable additional points to consider.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
