#54. Reality is Virtual but the Host Computer is Analog. [physics, chemistry, neuroscience]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The nucleus around which a TOE will hopefully crystallize.

Here is my idea of what lies behind the veil of space time: something like a Turing machine, but with a multiplicity of tapes and a multiplicity of processors. Each tape corresponds to one elementary particle in space time and the processors implement only Hebb’s rule, a rule of learning first discovered in neuroscience, and that governs correlations among signal sources. The tapes are polymer-like, and their ongoing elongation by polymerization at the ends causes the passage of time. This elongation is associated with a white-noise signal unique to each particle/tape/strand because the monomers are sampled from a population with a Gaussian size distribution.

06-26-2019: A theoretical schema showing the basic strand-processor interaction. The theory borrows from the Turing machine concept, Hebb's rule of learning, and the chemistry of polymerization. Black, one information-bearing polymer strand; blue, processor; red, monomers.

07-03-2019: A more complex, two-strand scheme. The monomer cloud has been omitted for clarity.

07-09-2019: A still more complex, three-strand

scheme. Assumption: at a given point, multiple strands can adhere to the same processor, and vice-versa.

06-26-2019: The first illustration is my current best guess as to what a "Hebb processor" is like, but as we say, "Many questions remain." The short, black lines are the catalyzed ligation points between "monomers," and these are the points of attraction to the processor. If the rear pull-off point encounters a big gap between ligation points, the processor will advance an unusually great distance in one step, creating an unusually long catalytic pocket at the front, which will have a selectivity for longer monomers, thereby implementing a copying mechanism. (Causally, this is backwards, but the alternative seems to involve a messy discussion of chemical equilibria.)

This “machine” is presumed to be naturally occurring and to belong to a particular stage in the physical evolution of the universe. (i.e., I make no appeal to arguments of intelligent design, even by space aliens.) By the anthropic principle, the machine is not necessarily typical of all structures extant at that stage. <06-04-2020: In other words, we are living in a natural subworld that is simulation-like in that the view from within is entirely unlike the view from without, but the two views are lawfully related by something that could be called the "subworld law," an example of which is given below, i.e., "d = K/rxy." (This concept is nothing new because it could also serve in outline as a description of human conscious experience, which is most unlike a mass of neurons signaling to each other in the dark.) Thus, the Theory of Everything could turn out to be a series of nested subworld laws.>

The length of a strand relative to some interior point is a Gaussian white-noise time-series signal with an upward trend just steep enough to eliminate negative slopes. I will deal here with the detrended version of this signal because, on the laboratory distance scale, both the observed system and the observer will share the same trend, preventing its direct observation. Moreover, the polymerization process is postulated to preserve a permanent record of the detrended signal. Therefore, while the future does not exist in this model of time, the past is perfectly preserved. A set of distinguishable time series is called “panel data” and is a Euclidean space by the mathematical definition and can therefore map onto and explain physical space, at least on the laboratory scale.

Imagine some panel data consisting of two time series, X and Y, representing two elementary particles. Take a slice of this data ten samples long and plot them as two ten-dimensional vectors, X and Y. The dot product of these vectors is then easily computed as x₁y₁ + x₂y₂ + … x₁₀y₁₀. A Euclidean space is defined as an affine space (i.e., containing no special points like the origin) where the vector dot product is defined. Recall that this dot product is equal to the length of X times the length of Y times cosθ, where θ is the angle between the vectors. Moreover, cosθ is here equal to rₓy, aka Pearson’s r, a measure of correlation between signal sources. Pearson's r is commonly used in the sciences, including neuroscience, and ranges from -1 for negative correlations to +1 for positive correlations; zero indicates no correlation.

I conjecture that rxy represents distance in space time, and vector length represents mass-energy in space time. An rxy of 0 would represent infinite distance and an rxy of 1 would represent 0 distance, a state found only in black-hole singularities or the big bang singularity. Processes would be experienced as close together because they are correlated  (Previously suggested in Post #4.), not correlated because they are close together. The latter is the usual assumption, usually rationalized as being due to the easy exchange of synchronizing photons or virtual photons at close range. However, we seem to be moving here toward the elimination of the light/photon construct from physics. Good riddance; it was always pretty dicey.

(Deprecated, Part 6)

07-25-2015 to 07-27-2019: A simpler possibility is d = K/rxy and rxy = K/d. This change advantageously limits how small space-time distances can become, thereby eliminating infinities from gravity calculations. K is this minimum length. With this revision, the dot product of two vectors in the simulation becomes equal to gravitational binding energy.

No Flying Spaghetti Monster would be complete without meatballs, and these would be the Hebb processors alluded to in the opening paragraph. Each strand would have a processor on each end that may catalyze the polymerization process. Each processor would also be connected to a random point within the mass of strands. This connection moves along the associated strand like a phonograph needle,  reading the recorded signal while keeping pace with the growing end. The processor also has a front read-point in the present. The two read points may or may not be on the same strand. If a correlation is detected between the two read points, the correlation is permanently enhanced by a modification of the polymerization process, per Hebb’s rule. All the orderliness of the universe is supposed to emerge from this one type of calculation.

07-9-2019: At this point, we have not eliminated "space" from physics; we have merely replaced Euclidean space by another kind of space that is less structured, in which the "spaghetti machine" has its being. The new space is a "metric space" but has neither norm nor dot product axiomatically, although they can be present in simulation.The metric is bijective with the counting (natural) numbers and is equal to the number of "primordial time elements" (PTEs) in a polymer of same.

Degrees of correlation less than maximal are encoded in the processor as the number of strands adhering to the processor above the minimum for inter strand copying, namely two. One of these "middle strands," as I shall call them, is illustrated in the sketch of the three-strand scheme, and they putatively degrade the fidelity of the copying process and reduce Pearson's r in proportion to their numbers, while also introducing a time delay into the copying process, due to changes in the length of the processor. A reduction in Pearson's r, which increases the encoded space time distance, simultaneous with an increase in the copying time delay is responsible for the finite speed of light.

7-15-2019: If N is the number of middle strands on a processor, then a reasonable guess as to its effect on Pearson’s r would be r = 1/(N + 1). (Deprecated, Part 6) 07-22-2019: slight problem: the units analysis doesn't work out, so this paragraph is a work in progress.

07-25-2019: The problem is solved if we set the electron binding energy equal to the length of the projection of the electron vector on the proton vector. This is not the dot product and it has the correct units, namely mass-energy. The revised attempt to reproduce Rydberg's formula is:

ΔE = ||e||*(1/n₁ – 1/n₂), n₂ > n₁. (1)

The default interaction implemented by Hebb’s rule would be gravitational attraction. Black hole formation illustrates that gravitation has a built-in positive feedback, and this would derive from the positive feedback built into simple forms of Hebb’s rule.

07-9-2019: To provide my hypothetical Hebb processors with such a positive feedback, I postulate the following: Middle strands come and go in an energy-dependent excision/reintegration process and have a small loop of processor adhering to them when free, which explains how the processor length changes occur. A high-fidelity copying process releases more energy than does a low-fidelity copying process, and excision requires energy input. These ingredients, together with the fidelity-degrading property of a middle strand, should be sufficient for a positive feedback.

If the two read points are on the same strand, the result will be an oscillation. Electromagnetism could be the set of interactions peculiar to oscillating strands. The variance needed to express the oscillation would be deducted from a fixed total, resulting in less variance available to represent distances by its correlations. A smaller distance signal will be more rapidly modified by the Hebb processors, resulting in faster responses to forces and a smaller mass according to Newton’s a = F/m. Thus, we expect neutral particles to be more massive than charged particles, and this tendency is indeed found among the mesons and when comparing the proton and neutron. The relatively great mass of the proton and neutron and the nuclear strong force itself may emerge from a cyclic pattern of three strands (the quarks) connected by three processors. The example of the benzene molecule teaches us to expect novel results from cyclization. (07-31-2019: This will be a huge idea when asking what underlies the metric space alluded to above. 01-17-2020: The metric space may itself be a simulation running on a processor situated in a still simpler space, namely a topological space, in which only a few distinctions matter, such as inside-outside and closed-open. 01-17-2020: The great mass of the baryons may come from the chaos inevitable in the celestial-mechanics version of the three-body problem, but the three bodies would be the three quarks. Recall that in the present theory, noise amplitude corresponds to mass-energy, and fast chaos looks like noise. The three-fold nature of these particles may also create the three-dimensionality of space, but I am having trouble picturing this.

05-22-2020: An extension of this idea would be that chaos is the source of all mass and the properties of a timeline depend on how many highly-correlated others there are ("intimates") and the degree of this correlation. One intimate produces an oscillation but no mass; two or more produce chaos and some amount of mass. Intimacy can be understood as relative, leading to a hierarchy of relationships. The fact that three bodies are the minimum for chaos remains an attractive explanation for the three-dimensionality of space. Details remain elusive, but I am now trying for a holistic vision and no longer focusing narrowly on baryons.

05-22-2020: There may be an alternative kind of middle strand or mode of adhesion that enhances copying fidelity upon adhesion rather than degrading it. This amendment to the theory may be required to model interactions that appear repulsive.

Hebb processors with their rear read points in the distant past would open up long-distance communication channels in space time, giving us the by-now familiar experience of looking millions of years into the past through powerful telescopes, to see galaxies as they were when the universe was young. The communication would be instantaneous, but from an old source; not slow from a new source.

06-18-2019: The big bang:

I conjecture that the universe began in a singularity for a trivial reason: it initially had no way to represent information, let alone correlations, because all the incoming monomers were PTEs, identical in size and having the smallest possible size. A slow direct condensation reaction in the monomer pool then gradually built up larger blocks of PTEs, causing the average size of the items adding to the strands by polymerization to increase progressively. The standard deviation of the size distribution would likewise have increased. Space would have expanded rapidly at first, as predicted by the inflationary hypothesis, because the first little bit of polymerization entropy to develop would have had a disproportionate effect on the system's ability to represent information. The mass-energy of all particles has also been increasing ever since the big bang.

07-25-2019: Therefore, by equation (1), we expect that spectral lines from ancient luminous matter will be redder than comparable lines from contemporary matter, as found by Hubble, which explains the cosmological red shift.

01-17-2020: Another perspective would be that the future is a false vacuum, the past is a true vacuum, and the present is the ever-expanding boundary between. The false-vacuum decay would be driven by entropy increase, not enthalpy (i.e., heat content) decrease (which is allowed by the second law of thermodynamics), because only the interior of the true-vacuum bubble would be occupied by information (i.e., the timelines).

"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." Hamlet, II.ii

#33. Big-electron Theory [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

Some of the paradoxes and weirdness of quantum mechanics can be dispelled if we assume that any particle that can be diffracted isn't really there: we are only looking at the center of spherical symmetry of a much larger, possibly cosmologically large, wave function. Furthermore, this center of symmetry is only an abstraction, like the north pole of the Earth. Like the fields that we impute to them, quantum particles would have a wave function amplitude that decreases asymptotically to zero with distance from the center, and thus would have no well defined outer boundary. I shall denote this lack of an outer boundary by calling particles or wave functions "expansive."

Elementary particles seem submicroscopic in size because the wavelength of the corresponding wave functions is often submicroscopic, which imposes a requirement for the centers of symmetry of two such "particles" to coincide with very great precision before an interaction can be observed. This would be the case if the default interaction were characterized by destructive interference almost everywhere, which only switches over into constructive interference when the centers nearly coincide. An assumption needed for further development of this theory is that interaction is contingent on the development of expansive constructive interference. (In this post, I confine my attention to scattering-type interactions.)

The common presence of  accelerations in our universe combined with a finite speed of light might suggest that expansive wave functions would quickly fill up with incoherence, destroying their usefulness as explanatory causes. However, if there are no non-expansive elementary particles, we just have expansive interacting with expansive to produce every acceleration. Once you get entirely away from the tiny-electron idea, it is not at all clear that any incoherence could ever develop. Such may well occur to a limited extent under some conditions, however, but it may take more detailed mathematical treatments than I am prepared to carry out to characterize these conditions. One naturally suspects that Relativity theory is based on such limited incoherencies.

Two baffling kinds of experiment seem amenable to the big-electron treatment: diffraction of "particles" of matter like electrons, and entanglement experiments.

Electrons fired in a vacuum at a pair of closely-spaced slits, with a photographic plate situated on the other side of the slits, will produce a diffraction pattern on the developed plate consisting of alternating exposed and unexposed bands. These are interpreted as locations of constructive and destructive interference between "matter waves" emanating from the two slits under the stimulation of the electron beam. If the intensity of the beam is lowered to the point where only one electron is "in the chamber" at a time, thereby eliminating the possibility of inter-electron interactions inside the chamber, the diffraction pattern develops just as before. It merely takes longer. Now here's the weird part: all this could happen only if each electron goes through both slits at once! This is truly weird if we try to use the traditional tiny-electron picture, but much easier to visualize using the big-electron picture.

Entanglement of two particles that persists over distances measured in kilometers is also easier to understand if we remember that the experimental apparatus is itself made up of expansive wave functions and is therefore mostly overlapped with the two particles being studied throughout the experiment.

If all this is true, we live in a vast web of inter-validating illusions called the particle model.

#30. The Russian-dolls--multiverse Part I [physics]

Matryoshka/pupa

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The nucleus around which a TOE will hopefully crystallize.

6-03-2017

I usually assume in these pages that the space we live in has an absolute frame of reference, as Newton taught, and which Einstein taught against. Not only that, but that this frame of reference is a condensate of some sort, rather like the water that a fish swims in.

I also assume that the divide-and-conquer strategy that has served science so well thus far can blithely continue with the (conceptual) dis assembly of this space into its constituent particles. At that point the question arises if these particles are situated in yet another space, older and larger than ours, or if you go direct to spacelessness, where entities have to be treated like Platonic forms. In the former case, one wonders if that older, larger space in turn comes apart into particles situated in a still older and larger, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

I am told that infinities are the death of theories. Nevertheless, let us hold our noses and continue with the Russian Dolls idea, merely assuming that the nesting sequence is not infinite and will not be infinite until the entire multi verse is infinitely old, because the "dolls" form one by one, by ordinary gravitational collapse, from the outside in.

What, exactly, is it that collapses? Call them wave functions, following quantum mechanics. In the previous post, we see that wave functions are slightly particle-like in having a centre of symmetry. In the outermost space, previously called #, the wave crests always move at exactly the speed of light.

7-14-2017

This speed is not necessarily our speed of light, c, but more likely some vastly greater value.

6-03-2017

The space-forming particles of # are themselves aggregates with enough internal entropy to represent integers and enough secondary valences to form links to a set of nearest neighbors to produce a network that is a space. This space acts like a cellular automaton, with signals passing over the links to change the values of the stored integers in some orderly way. The wave functions are the stereotyped, stable figures that spontaneously develop in the automaton out of the initial noise mass left over from catastrophic gravitational collapse, or some abstract, spaceless equivalent. 

Gravity would enter as a geometric effect; impossible at 1D, poorly developed at 2D, commonplace but commonly stalled at extended systems in 3D, and irresistible at 4D and higher (The latter conclusion is based on an anthropic argument in "The Universe in a Nutshell", by Steven Hawking). 

Finally, assume that the dimensionality of a space increases steadily over time, suggesting that the number of links emanating from each node in the underlying network increases slowly but surely. Macroscopically, this dimensionality increase could look something like protein folding. This does not yet explain gravity, a task for another day&&, but static nonlinearities in the automaton's representation system may be involved.*

To facilitate discussion, let us label the Russian-dolls universes from the outside in, in the sequence 1, 2, 3,...etc, and call this number the "pupacity" of a given frame of reference. (From the Latin "pupa," meaning "doll.") Let us further shorten "pupacity" to "p" for symbol-compounding purposes. Thus, the consecutively labelled spaces can be referred to as p1 (our former "#"), p2, p3,... etc.

A final, absolutely crucial assumption is that pn can exhibit global motions ("n" is some arbitrary pupacity), such as rotation, in the frame of reference of p(n-1). Yes, we are talking here about a whole, damned universe rotating as a rigid unit. Probably, it can drift and vibrate as well.

Now, by the assumptions of the previous post, these global motions must be subtracted from the true, outer, speed-of-light speed of the wave crest to produce its apparent speed and direction when seen from within pn. Thus, the universe's love of spinning and orbiting systems of all sizes is explained: a spinning, global-motion vector is being subtracted from the non-spinning, outermost one. As the0-pupacity of our frame of reference increases, more and more of these global vectors are being subtracted, causing the residual apparent motion to get progressively smaller. We would assume under current physics that the wave functions are acquiring more and more mass, to make them go slower and slower, but mass is just a fiction in the scenario presented above. However, the reliance of current physics on the mass construct is a golden opportunity to determine the pupacity of planet Earth.

It is three.

Three, because physics knows of three broad categories of particle mass: the photon, leptons, and baryons. The photon would be native to p1, leptons, such as electrons and positrons, would be native to p2, and baryons, such as protons and neutrons, would be native to p3, our own, dear home in the heavens. 

01-09-2019: it is an interesting coincidence that our pupacity equals the dimensionality of our space. Are dimensionality and pupacity linked during cosmological evolution?&&

6-03-2017

Some interpretations follow. The positron atom would be a standing-wave pattern made up of oppositely rotating wave functions, an electron and a positron, both native to p2. A neutron would be exactly the same thing, but native to p3. Note that both are unstable in isolation.

How is it that we observers in p3 can even detect electrons, say, if those are not native to p3? Because p2 is necessarily older than p3 and has had more time to develop extra dimensions. This will give p3 thin dimensions when seen in the frame of reference of p2, and it is along these thin dimensions that the electrons of p2 approach our own, native protons closely enough to participate in our p3 physics.

Neutron stars would be p4, but I haven't figured out black holes. Just big p4s?

*6-05-2017

or an amplitude-speed coupling.

#26. The Phasiverse [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The nucleus around which a TOE will hopefully crystallize.

3-29-2017

I will be arguing here that our reality, the world of appearances, is encoded in the relative phases of an ineffably large number of oscillators, each of which is a kind of primitive clock.

An early interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics was that there is a harmonic oscillator somehow assigned to each point in space, and that these account for the matter fields of the universe. Examples of such oscillators (the definition is abstract and mathematical), unsuitable for easy, weekend universe creation, would be masses bouncing up and down on springs, and electronic devices called tank circuits, which are just one capacitor connected across the terminals of one inductor, plus taps on the inductor for getting the energy in. (I am thinking here of the Hartley oscillator, of which I built half a dozen as a teenager.)

If a bunch of such oscillators can communicate with each other (exchange oscillatory energy), this is called coupling, and it can make the oscillators tend to pull each other in to the same, common phase. The Huygens's clocks experiment begins with two old-school pendulum clocks in a case with their pendulums swinging in some random phase relationship. The next day,  mysteriously, the pendulums will always be found swinging in opposite directions. The coupling is evidently due to tiny, rhythmic forces travelling through the common case from clock to clock.

If the coupling is positive, as assumed here, (it's negative in the above experiment), the phase pull-in effect becomes stronger the closer the two phases approach each other, causing a positive feedback effect. This is very reminiscent of Hebb's rule in neuroscience and the tendency of natural attractive forces such as gravity to depend inversely on distance. I have already offered Hebb's rule in these pages as an abstract rule of attraction and binding in a scheme for polymerizing spaceless but noisy "time lines" into a three dimensional network that approximates the space we live in. However, oscillators make better space-forming entities than these "time lines" on a number of counts.

First of all, the phase pull-in effect alluded to above provides a simple answer to questions such as where the organizing principle comes from. All you need to explain is where the oscillators themselves all came from, how they oscillate, and why they are coupled. Since the oscillators begin life in spacelessness, it is hard to see how they could avoid interacting to produce a coupling effect. Second, oscillators need no past or future; they can arise as a succession of causally related nows that alternates between two contrasting forms. (Since we haven't gotten as far as space yet, these would have to be abstract, spaceless entities that smack of yin and yang.) Figures in Conway's game of Life would seem to be examples of this alternation.

What is the time required for such an alternation? The question is meaningless; they just do it. With no past or future, the special status of the present becomes self-explanatory, alleviating some of the cognitive dissonance that goes with the concept of a unified space-time. This space-time, and the even more bizarre idea that it is warped by mass-energy as if embedded in an even higher-dimensional space, starts to look like a device to visualize one's way to solutions to problems that have their origin in unvisualizable spacelessness.

A great many oscillators all with the same phase is not an interesting universe. However, suppose this is impossible because of "train wrecks" happening during the synchronization process that produce frustration of the synchronization analogous to spin frustration in spin glasses. An example would be a cyclic relationship of oscillators in which a wave goes around the loop endlessly. Such cycles may correspond to particles of matter in our universe, and the spiral waves that they would throw off into surrounding space may correspond to the fields around such particles.

A black hole or galaxy would be surrounded by a tremendous number of such radiating fields. The resulting desychronization of the oscillators making up the surrounding space would increase the average phase difference between phasically nearby oscillators, thereby inhibiting their coupling, thereby inhibiting the travel of signals generally through the region. Result: the speed of light is reduced in the vicinity, resulting in the bending of light rays, called gravitational lensing. Notice how easily we derive an effect that formerly required General Relativity.

The next level of description deals with where the oscillators come from.

4-23-2017

Let us jettison the particle model altogether at this point and assume the universe to be made of the waves themselves, with no need for generating objects. These waves might have a tendency to synchronize as a fundamental given. If it is not fundamental, maybe the explanation for it can safely be left to a future generation of physicists. (The image I get at this point is of a series of temporary camps struck during the ascent of some stupendous mountain, for step-wise consolidation of gains, with the grail of the TOE located at the summit.)

As a second thread of this argument, I note that some of the phenomena characteristic of quantum theory can be explained as due to the practicalities of representing functions like waves, practicalities that are always in your face when programming a computer, but never mentioned in the physics I have read so far. In programming, you have to define memory space for all variables, which is always, ultimately, an integer or a set of integers, with both a maximum and a minimum (nonzero) amount that can be represented.

Quantization could be due to the presence of small quantities comparable in size to the value of the least significant bit of an integer-like entity. (Deprecated, Part 4)

#21. Is Higher Math Really Undiscovered Physics? [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

This post was inspired by the realization that to progress in physics, we need to accept the Newtonian position that absolute space exists. Not only that, but that it is complicated, like a network, crystal, or condensate. Too many fundamental constants of nature (20, according to Lee Smolin) are required to explain the behaviour of supposedly elementary particles with no internal structures to which such constants could refer.

Thus, the constants must refer to the vacuum between the particles, now more readily understood as a complex medium. Looking at the pattern set by the rest of physics and cosmology, such a medium is more readily understood as a condensate of myriad "space-forming entities." Matter would be flaws in this condensate, entropy left over from its rapid formation. Energy may have the same relation to time: irregularities in its rate of progression.

To theorize about how space formed and what came before it, we have to give up visualization, obviously. I suspect this will be a big deal for most physicists. However, the abstractions of higher math may be an island of understanding already existing on the far side of the spatial thought barrier.

In other words, sets, integers, categories, mappings, etc., may be concrete things, and not abstractions at all. Presumably, our spatial and temporal reality still bears the properties it had from the very earliest stages of the universe, co-existing with later-developed properties, which have enabled mathematicians throughout history to access the deepest levels of description of reality, deeper than space time itself.

Consider set theory. Can the familiar concepts of set, union, intersection, and complement be placed into correspondence with physical processes and objects in today's space time to make a case that set theory is pre-spatial physics, so primordial as to be literally unimaginable if thought of as the rules of a real universe? To get started, we have to begin with Leibniz's monads, the "empty set," now considered a real thing. (If you must visualize these, visualize something ridiculous like Cheereos™ floating in milk, when the bowl has reached the single-layer stage.)

The physical process of binding is prefigured by the set-theoretical operation of union. In the simplest case, two monads combine to form a second-order set.

The physical process of pattern recognition, which is, in essence, energy release, is prefigured by intersection. Note that with intersection, the internal subset structure of the set is important, suggesting that the "operating system" of the universe at this stage must keep track of such structures.

We can associate a size measure with a set, namely the total of all the monads inside it once all subsets have been accounted for. The usefulness of numbers in dealing with the world is explained if this size measure is the basis of laws governing what sets may combine as unions and in what frequency (i.e., fraction of all sets extant.)

The fact that most of physics seems to be governed by differential equations may be prefigured by a tendency of these combining laws to depend on the difference of two sizes. The set-theoretical operation of complementation may prefigure the existence of positive and negative charge and the Pauli exclusion principle of fermions, on which molecular complementarity interactions depend.

#4. My First Theory of Everything (TOE) [physics]

PH

Red, theory; black, fact.

The nucleus around which a TOE will hopefully crystallize.

Alocia and Anaevia

In my first post, I made a case for the existence of absolute space and even suggested that space is some kind of condensate (e.g., a crystal). The divide-and-conquer strategy that has served us so well in science suggests that the next step is to conceptually take this condensate apart into particles. The first question that arises is whether these particles are themselves situated in an older, larger embedding space, or come directly out of spacelessness (i.e., a strange, hypothetical early universe that I call "Alocia," my best Latin for "domain of no space." Going even further back, there would have been "Anaevia," "domain of no time." Reasoning without time seems even trickier than reasoning without space.)

What came before space?

The expansion of our universe suggests that the original, catastrophic condensation event, the Big Bang, was followed by further, slower accretion that continues to this day. However, the resulting expansion of space is uniform throughout its volume, which would be impossible if the incoming particles had to obey the rules of some pre-existing space. If there were a pre-existing space, incoming particles could only add to the exterior surface of the huge condensate in which we all presumably live, and could never access the interior unless our universe were not only embedded in a 4-space, but hyper-pizza-shaped as well. The latter is unlikely because self-attraction of the constituent particles would crumple any hyper-pizza-shaped universe into a hypersphere in short order. (Unless it spins?) Conclusion: the particles making up space probably have no spatial properties themselves, and bind together in a purely informational sense, governed by Hebb's rule. 

Hebb's rule was originally a neuroscience idea about how learning happens in the brain. My use of it here does NOT imply that a giant brain somehow underlies space. Rather, the evolutionary process that led to the human brain re-invented Hebb's rule as the most efficient way of acquiring spatial information. 

Hebb's rule pertains to signal sources: how could hypothetical space-forming particles come up with the endless supply of energy required by pumping out white noise, waves, etc., 24/7? Answer: these "particles" are the growing tips of time lines, that themselves grow by an energy-releasing accretion process. The chunks that accrete are variable in size or interrupted by voids, so timeline extension has entropy associated with it that represents the signals needed by Hebb's rule.

I am well aware of all the space-bound terms in the previous paragraph (underlined), supposedly about goings-on in Alocia, the domain of no space; however, I am using models here as an aid to thought, a time-honored scientific technique.

Is cosmological expansion some kind of accretion?

I imagine that Alocia is home to large numbers of space-like condensates, with a size distribution favoring the microscopic, but with a long tail extending toward larger sizes. Our space grows because these mostly tiny pre-fab spaces are continually inserting themselves into it, as soon as their background signal pattern matches ours somewhere. This insertion process is probably more exothermic than any other process in existence. If the merging space happens to be one of the rarer, larger ones, the result would be a gamma ray burst bright enough to be observed at cosmological distances and generating enough pure energy to materialize all the cosmic rays we observe.

The boundary problem

I suspect that matter is annihilated when it reaches the edge of a space. This suggests that our space must be mostly closed to have accumulated significant amounts of matter. This agrees with Hawking's no-boundary hypothesis. The closure need not be perfect, however; indeed, that would be asking a lot of chance. Imperfections in the closure of our universe may take the form of pseudo-black holes: cavities in space that lack fields. If they subsequently acquire fields from the matter that happens to hit them, they could evolve to closely resemble super-massive black holes, and be responsible for nucleating galaxies.

Conclusions

• Spatial proximity follows from correlations among processes, and does not cause them.
• Any independence of processes is primordial and decays progressively.
• The universe evolves through a succession of binding events, each creating a new property of matter, which can be interpreted as leftover entropy.
• Analysis in the present theoretical framework proceeds by declaring familiar concepts to be conflations of these properties, e.g., time = change + contrast + extent + unidirectional sequence; space = time + bidirectional sequence.