Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns
From 'Now' to Dark Matter

A Paradox,  a paradox
Mass as the Confinement of Energy
Metaphysical Considerations
Gre theory and Dark matter
Anecdotes & Experiments
Comparative Physics
Tell a Friend

Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology

A Paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox!

Noel Eberz, June 2005 - July 2007

A line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s ‘Pirates of Penance’ is more than appropriate for the assertions herein and the image of Abell 1689, a focusing galactic cluster shown on the home page, being definitive for the topic. Amusingly, if Abell 1689 were a lot closer and Huygens’ optic telescope a good deal more refined in the mid-17th century, he would have seen what appears to be the most spectacular refractive lens one might imagine. It is peripherally focusing a further distant galaxy and modern determinations have established ‘hundreds of days of light path delay’ for different paths seen thru it. Surely at that time, the object would have been declared a refractive lens, hands down. Of course, why galactic space would act like a thicker or denser lens, might have remained a mystery a few more centuries, but I would conclude: imagining it to be an extended or thinner space would never have won the day. So now a paradox and that is not all.

Relativity theory as applied to the larger universe has generated a number of paradoxes appropriate to the term relative - pun intended - namely the Twin and Grandfather paradox. These are both products of the interpretation of space-time and travelers therein: The Twin paradox concerns a high speed traveler and his stay-at-home sibling while the Grandfather paradox is about a yet-to-be-psychoanalysized time-traveler who executes his grandfather before he himself was born thereby precluding his own existence.

This essay is not about expanding such themes into more fantasy ideas but why they persist in modern technical discussion. If you are familiar with these paradoxes in the popular science literature, you will find here they remain self-contradictory for other better reasons.

The Twin paradox started as a thought experiment, pondering what would happen or be the effect associated with the relative motion between the Stay-at-home (SAH) and the Fasttraveler (FT). To make a long story short, the fact is that time slows for the FT, such that the SAH ages more quickly and appears older when they reconnect. But the present paradox is not the contradiction of why this should be when their motion is supposedly just relative but rather that Relativity theory produces this contradictory effect of different aging compared to the former common sense, pre-relativistic world where we might imagine why there would be any difference at all. No longer conjecture and thoroughly demonstrated various ways, I accept the physical phenomenon, but conclude the paradox now is how these two environments can be different and still call it mere relative motion between them. Hold that thought.

The Grandfather paradox, killing your parents before your born, is esoteric and bizarre and admittedly on the fringe of modern space-time ruminations but no less on the mind of ‘notables’ in their efforts to comprehend how the universe might work. They are two steps beyond me. That they would pander to any theory yielding time-travel* and then conclude (dream up) a physical law that precludes such pathologic behavior is indeed bizarre. Amusingly, they are not really interested in the demonstrated mental dysfunction of the timetraveler but rather avoiding any violation in causality, e.g. somehow nature would not let him do it. In retrospect why might they think this way?

The story starts after the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887, a grand test of the velocity of light (Voc). The diabolic result was a null of any effect, the bane of any experiment with all the associated anticipation crushed. The cruel conclusion was that the earth was not moving through an aether, Voc apparently indifferent to the motion of the earth, hence space must be totally void. Einstein rectified the problem and then some. No question the equations work with uncanny precision but could the theory have gone another way or might another way be justified? I say yes to both questions.

Today space is hardly void, teeming with virtual particles, even teased with modern ideas of negative energy (assigned to space) and dark matter (a space that behaves like gravity hence must be mass) even if elusively undetected. Nor is it problematic anymore that earth movement produces a forward blue shift and aft red shift with respect to the celestial sphere. If a problem, I suspect first the early bandwagon. Unless a bandwagon is in the French Quarter of New Orleans where it might take an hour to move a few inches, such devices are hard to get off once they start rolling.

Way back when, what happened? Lorenz offered mass contraction equations as a solution to a Voc=k with motion, and despite the fact millions wore spectacles that refract light which invariably slows down light with a simple scalar number - Einstein generated a complex expression modifying space. A similar ten term expression for the refractive index that slows light, slows time, etc. might well have carried the day instead.

So if I think these paradoxes are misplaced, I secondly assert the root cause of the problem is how to interpret space-time. It may be a handy relativistic tool but it can’t be reality. And a paradox suggests a problem, particularly from certain cosmological viewpoints. These combined essays forward the idea that time is not a dimension with extent like space but rather: Time is only ‘Now’, a stress on space with one absolute unique property - It is the only framework (place) where physical change can occur. This place is everywhere and simultaneous by definition, default and critical review. The fact is empirically obvious by our mutual awareness of where any change occurs and acknowledging any delays of our being aware of it with respect to our individual location, now, here and there. Other interesting ideas fall out when the obvious is accepted.

In such a universe with a universal now, Twins indeed may age differently in different environments and any time-travel* outside ‘now’ is an absurdity. Paradoxes indeed. And Abell 1689 might again be interpreted as it seems. If you think this and other questions of relativity or cosmology seem unasked or ignored, read on for some additional consolation. This website has two major themes - a general tutorial on different cosmological models, their differences and special concerns. The second theme is a new paradigm change - considering time as only ‘Now’ then related concepts of space and substance, to a new interpretation and explanation for the nature of Dark matter.

* This term and imaginary idea should be called time-commuting - the idea of repeatable two way travel. Living itself is forward time travel and the Twins both travel forward but just at different physiological rates.

From ‘Now’ to Dark Matter - a preview

While comparison to other time schemes might be fruitful, ‘Now’ in its own right is empirically obviously. The fact that we can’t escape from ‘now’ except only in thought ‘now’ simply proves its unitary nature. Therefore, emphatically tied to the physiology of the ‘self’ and the basic physics of simple space (and its contained substance) seems more than convincing that ‘now’ is all there is in that framework. The flow of time is the combination of a stress on space and its contents - now - and change is any strain accomplished. The rate is not fixed but very dependent on its local environment. It is not a continuum but a single manifold, a singularity if you wish, thru-out all space. The past is merely the integral of former ‘nows’ and the future the propensity of ‘now’ to changes that modify the present. The arrow of time is the inherent vector of the stress itself. ‘Now’ is not some independent variable - and poignantly, it is us. Equally important and correspondingly, memory and anticipation of the ‘self’, again only ‘Now’, is very anthropic but also responsible for the muddling and other confusing views of time.

A universal ‘now’ was never a question until Michaelson & Morley. Delays in communication were accepted. But the famous experiment inadvertently concluded space was void - not an acceptable idea today. So it wasn’t totally unreasonable that Einstein altered the metric to what otherwise here will be interpreted as a thicker slower space. His was an elegant solution but then it introduced its own paradoxes and bizarre cosmological interpretations more pregnant today.

Space-time is very self-contradictory beside excluding a meaningful ‘now’. It fails to justify a direction or arrow other than obtuse fuzzy macro trends (local entropy and thermodynamics can go both ways), but more specifically:
Motion is not relative as the twin paradox refutes. And in other ways, a Mach universe or cosmic dependent background simply confirms a here & now with the whole. Relativistic math works but could equally be transformed to a ‘now’ manifold with a variable speed of light (Voc) inversely tied to the gravitational field. For example, the focusing galactic cluster Abell 1689 is better acting like a denser refractive lens than a distended space metric.

And finally consider the double pox of a Black hole:

1) A Schwartschild radius which creates an infinite distended space-time on the outside and a no-math-land inside.

2) A great singularity mass at the center without any definition other than magnitude of what that mass might be.

Biorates, Analogs and a dash of Philosophy - a new approach

Defined herein, a Biorate is a human observer including his physiology. In a modern sense he recognizes not only his environment but can communicate with other biorates to compare relative differences between them, particularly using a Doppler beacon. Within the cosmic whole, his compatriots recognize their different space and velocity environments and can interpret who or what should be more robust, going faster, or living slower, etc. To suggest they are each sterile with Voc=k and that E=mc2 is a fixed relationship rather than a ratio between environments is passe. Further, they can engineer and each carry a universal ‘Now’ clock by being aware of their individual and collective differences, and incidentally, if many of them, avoiding a Relativistic N-body problem.

The universe is big with fine detail, ancient with a quick pulse and includes us evolved with an object oriented intellect. The latter is as much due to the machinery of the eye as it is converted in the brain into hard or ethereal concepts or processes and indoctrinated therein as much by shaman or scientists. That we enter into this awesome universe in mid-scales, I find actuality by analogy is common. I follow with three: Size, Bowen and Roche.

The size analog: A galaxy is like a solar system is like an atom. But as far as mass, act like kernels of mass with elements of energy including heat or curl, all augmenting into a greater mass. But this mass system is also destructible which introduces the Roche limit analog. When the dimensional size of the object mass is sundered as in a supernova of an atomic star to a neutron star, there is both an increase in the mass density of the new object but also a great release of previously confined energy. This yields the essay ‘Mass as the confinement of Energy’ and considers the advantage of a Grey hole over a Black hole.

The Bowen Condensation analog, after petrologist NL Bowen’s continuous and discontinuous scheme of crystallization of igneous rocks, yields a new insight into universal mass aggrandizement trends, suggesting a significant difference in particulate vs. gravitational processes, and why maybe there is no such thing as a Graviton.

The final essay ’Gre theory and Dark matter” bring all this together with a ubiquitous little particle (think very small like a String- much smaller than any other recognized particle) and called herein, a Gre particle, in Euclidian space, always in motion but interacting with itself (other gre particles) with a Snell’s law refractive physics behavior. ‘Gre particles in space’ is the whole works, yielding gravity, the medium of EH transmission and all mass configurations. Not as bizarre as it seems, in contrast to String theory. It has potential to describe both the macro and micro features of our universe. For example, beside relatively static Dark matter, recent dynamic galactic environments can readily show large temporal aspects of disrupted gravitational configurations (alias Dark-matter)

In this website, first review the tutorial of modern cosmologies and some introductory clues as to how we get from ‘Now’ to Dark matter. And below is a Glossary of terms applicable to this website.

Space-now Glossary

It doesn’t take a lot of ‘physics’ awareness to understand stress and strain and its general meaning and apply it to time with the essential inclusion of space & substance. But in these essays it is emphasized how Homo-sapiens is the principle believer in the continuity concept of time. All other species, either totally or in some degree perceive only ‘now’. The specific words below are more rigidly defined to stress the ‘now’ vs. the conceptual views we typically hold.

Stress & Strain - While first a mechanical concept, it is applicable to all disciplines including thermal, chemical, atomic, gravitational etc. Stress is the force and strain is any resulting change. Most physical changes can occur in both directions and while exothermic results are more dominant, endothermic is possible too. Creation of the heavy elements beyond iron in a Nova is an example. Many human endeavors are also of this nature. Iron rusts naturally but we reduce it for new purposes. This challenges the notion of entropy as a cause of ‘times arrow’ rather than a product of any environment and the arbitrariness in defining a closed system.
Substance - Substance is a loose term here for all known and not so well known forms of mass & energy, contained in any volume of space. Well known and local are planets, ‘you’, starlight and atoms. Not so well known are the virtual substratum of quantum theory or other more macroscopic unknowns like dark energy etc. But again, all extant ‘now’.

Information - Herein information has a more restricted meaning. Information has two essential aspects: the nature of its physical existence and the nature of its cognitive relevance, both extant only ‘now’. Three examples can sort these features, but all require physical substance existing only ‘now’:
DNA - DNA is a unique example of information discovered rather than humanly created. The cognitive aspect is appreciating its function in process - in normal life, you can eat it or even make babies with it. The printed page - This is a sample of extant information created by our cognition, but mostly inert, like books on a library shelf or being potentially utilized - Black and white and red/read all over, only if it is in your language.
Memorized multiplication table - Very human, somehow extant in the brain and idle but usable on demand by the intellect ‘now’ as is all knowledge in our head and of course quite perishable with death.

Relic - A relic is a physical entity, with its name or nature defined by its creation characteristics, somewhere, somehow in the past. It may be well preserved or reduced with other lesser changes to its present state ‘now’ but still retains that definition.

Bio-rate - Biorate is a recognizable variable of mutually cognitive observers. While variable because of multiple environmental factors for informed observers - they are also aware that Voc or E=mc2 are always ‘locally’ constant. Indirectly, biorate forces the sterile aspects of Relativistic constants to expose their physically real variability.

Look-back – Lookback implies a special form of ancient information yet existing only ‘now’ as EH radiation received only here & now to the cognitive intellect. In that later respect it has a ‘relic’ nature with the information carried, like the Cosmic background radiation, billions of years old and brought to the present.

Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology

Home | A Paradox | How Big? | Flat | D #s | H-B-N | Big Appearance? | The How of Now | Mass | Metaphysical | Gre | Anecdotes | Comparative Physics | Author | Contact | Tell a Friend |

© All Rights Reserved.