|
Hi All!
Let us consider a very simple thought experiment in regards to the birth of the universe. I hope
all my friends and detractors can bear with me.
1. Consider yourself at the place where you are right now and
imagine that the so called 'Big Bang' or the 'birthing of the universe' is happing at some NOW moment, which you can arbitrarily
define to the whims of your own choosing.
2.NOW happens and you now witness the expansion of the universe as
say a MIRROR in front of you receding into the distance, centred at the location, where you are and where you have defined
your whimsical NOW-Time.
3. So YOU become a Big Bang Observer (BBO or God-Observer say) in looking FORWARDS
at your own image in the receding mirror.
4. But AS your own image, you also look BACKWARDS at your NOW-coordinate
from within the mirror and as a Event Horizon Observer (EHO or Observer-God).
5. Poetically then YOU Observe
the Big Banged Universe as God-Allah-Cosmos or what have you; SIMULTANEOUSLY with BEING Observed by the Universal Labelings.
So
far so easy. I hope I will interest enough readers now to continue the thought experiment in some simple and logical, but
intricate geometries and numerical relationships.
Assumptions:
There is only one assumption;
namely that the EHO aka the mirror aka the Event Horizon of the Expanding Universe recedes from the BBO at a constant
and invariant velocity at all times. We may term this lightspeed c.
Consequences:
The
first consequence is of course one of reference frames. What is space and time and the stuff, say mass, making up the observers?
So
one can proceed in heuristically and rigorously defining those things by measurements and inductive and logistic languages
and symbolisations, say mathematics and sciences largely described by that mathematics, logistics and other symbolisations
and semiotiks.
This has been done historically, and many models for the cosmologies exist, including the model
of Quantum Relativity QR), which seeks to accomodate all other models, in favour of competing against all or any other models.
So,
as QR accepts the basic formulations of what is called Standard Model Cosmology (SMC); we may use the most elementary and
largely undisputed premises of SMC to continue the thought experiment. We seek of course to relate the two observers
of the BBO and the EHO.
The BBO is the astrophysicist looking through telescopes into 'outer space' and into
the distant past of the universe and its cosmogenesis. The BBO is standing still, relative to the EHO, which moves with the
expanding boundary aka the mirror of the universe.
The EHO on the other hand is the reverse observer and relative to the
BBO, the EHO is stationary and the BBO is receding in the opposite direction at lightspeed c.
So the EHO looks at the Big
Bang Singularity and the Big Bang Singularity looks at the EHO as the BBO and as itself as its own mirror image.
Effects
and Results:
The effect of the consequences would end now, should lightspeed c be the end of the matter.
The BBO and the EHO would separate forever at lightspeed and so expand the space between them in some definition for this
space, say as 3-dimensional Euclidean space configuration defined by coordinate systems.
The lightpath x=ct would suffice
to define the coordinates x as a 3vector, should one consider the mirror to be a spherical surface expanding from the Big
Bang Singularity, as the BBO.
A First Modulation:
The first modulation is to LIMIT
the lightpath to some convenient displacement, which becomes a spherical radius, labeled the Hubble-Radius x=RHubble=Rmax=ct.
This of course defines the explicit time
t of when the two observers will be precisely that Hubble-Radius apart.
One observer will be at the centre of a thus generated
Hubble-Sphere and the other on the Surface of this sphere and relative to each other - one stationary and the other observer
moving at lightspeed c.
A Second Modulation:
The second modulation becomes necessary,
because of our singular assumption as to the eternal lightspeed propagation of the lightpath, defining the separation
between the two observers as the Hubble-Radius.
How can there be a limit, if the lightpath cannot, by definition,
be anything other than an invariant?
One must so introduce a duality.
The lightspeed separation between the
observers continues in a higher dimensionality; and a dimensionality which now requires some form of definition.
But the
introduction of some 'stuff' of something else, which we may label as MASS in a lower dimensionality; will allow a separation
speed less than the lightspeed.
This scenario is of course aptly described in the Theory of Special Relativity or SR in
the SMC.
A Third Modulation:
The third modulation requires the 'stuff' of mass to
be subject to transformation, say as transmutational effect between the two dimensionalities.
And as this transmutational
effect results in a retardation of the lightspeed in conjunction with MASS, we may label this effect as GRAVITATION.
Gravitation
so must be the transformation of something, some othe 'stuff' from the higher dimension into the measured mass in the
lower dimension.
This of course is of course aptly described in the Theory of General Relativity or GR in the SMC.
A
Fourth Modulation:
The fourth modulation requires the transformer 'stuff', which manifests as MASS
in the lower dimension to be defined in terms of the lightspeed invariance.
This closes the circle of the modulations;
as the PREMASS in the higher dimensions IS NOT subject to the 'slowing down' effects of gravitation in the lower dimensions.
The
definition of the PREMASS as String-Energy and Bosonic-Monopole-Mass and ultimately as Seedling-Consciousness-Source Energy
is of course not so aptly and incompletedly described in the Theory of Quantum Relativity or QR in the extensions of the SMC
to the Extended Standard Model Cosmology or ESMC.
The Cosmological Redshift Duality and the Recession
Velocity of the Universe:
The Doppler-Formulation of SR is the appropriate redshift application for
the ESMC.
Here the cosmological redshift becomes a function of recessional velocity in the expression (v/c)=[z^2+2z]/[z^2+2z+2]
or z+1=Sqrt([1+v/c]/[1-v/c]).
We do NOT have a thermodynamic lower dimensional universe defined in MASS and GRAVITATION,
which expands into non-existent spacetime; as the Hubble-Radius became a constant LIMIT for this expansion from the c-invariant
higher dimensional expansion.
This means, that the EXPANDING UNIVERSE expands into its own STEADY HOYLE STATE
as an electromagnetically defined universe described in the PREMASS aka consciousness aka source energy aka aka.
So
when the astrophysicist measures a cosmological redshift; he measures many things at once. Namely he measures TWO reference
frames, that of the BBO and that of the EHO simultaneously.
The Recession Velocity of the Universe can be calculated
by QR to be 0.22c or 22% of lightspeed for a present NOW-Time of 19.11 Billion years.
For this value, the BBO
and the EHO separate at this speed for the present epoch. But there is an important consequence overlooked by the SMC. The
EHO SHARES the recession as the expanding wavefront aka the Hubble boundary of the mass parametric universe at a redshift
of z=0.2506 (from the Doppler formula in SR).
So relative to the EHO, which moves forwards relative to the BBO;
the BBO resides at infinite redshift at the Big Bang Singularity and relative to the BBO, the EHO resides at infinite redshift
looking at opposite directions to and fro as the images of each other.
QR also defines the Hubble-Limit as 16.9
Billion lightyears. The actual numbers don't matter too much and are close enough to the SMC to allow the general theory to
be calibrated.
One now defines the Hubble-Limit for the lower dimensional universe to define the Steady State as a Standing
Wave or Hubble-Oscillation of the higher dimensional universe.
This satisfies our singular assumption of the eternal lightspeed
propagation; but CLOSES the lowerD universe as a seed of OPEN higherD omniverse.
Setting up this Steady State
defines the BBO to be the even node and the LIMIT to be the odd node in a Hubble-Oscillation of the 'eternal' lightpath.
So
mathematically, we simply define the distance of separation between the two nodes to be UNITY.
We so redefine our Hubble-Radius
as n=Hot=ct/Rmax and allow the OPEN universe
to bounce between the nodes every 16.9 Billion years; this BOUNCE being the CONFINEMENT for the CLOSED universe.
The universe so becomes mathematically a Quantum Universe and as a 'Particle in a Box'.
This then can aptly be described in the Quantum Mechanics of a time-independent formulation of coordinates of collection
of parameters which are constituents of that 'universal box', harbouring the 'Cosmic Standing Wave'.
Our
present time t=x/c from the lightpath in the higher dimensional universe so can be made dimensionless in the n-parameter n=Hot for a nodal Hubble-Constant Ho=dn/dt.
In particular, our
present calculation of 19.11 Billion years for t implies that the BBO will measure the age of the universe to be rather less
in the lower dimension, than the EHO.
The BBO is in a sense fixed as the even node of the cosmic box, whilst the EHO 'bounces'
in between the nodes relative to the 11D wavefront and periodically coinciding with the LIMIT of the 10D wavefront every 33.8
Billion years.
But it is relative as the BBO moves relative to the stationary EHO by the postulates of SR and
one must take into considerations how the measurements of the observers would correlate.
Because of GRAVITATION,
the 10D universe asymptotically approaches its LIMIT and this GRAVITATION manifests differently in the dimensions.
In 11D, new
spacetime is continually created by the lightpath x=ct in a forward direction relative to the BBO; but in 10D, the lightpath
moves to and fro relative to the BBO in the Hubble-Oscillation of the Steady State Universe.
This GRAVITATION
can be made intrinsic to the 10D universe in defining the ScaleFactor for the Expansion as a function of the dimensionless
n-time.
This will be a simple proportion of the unity interval betweeen the nodes and in QR this takes the form R(n)=Rmax(n/(n+1)).
One can now use this unitisation or normalisation to define the change or
derivative of R(n) as the intrinsic recession velocity V(n) for the universe and from this calculate its intrinsic asymptote-defining
deceleration A(n).
The results are: V(n)=c/(n+1)^2 and A(n)=-2cHo/(n+1)^3.
From
this we calculate our aforementioned recession speed of 0.22c in using n=1.1324.. and a present universal deceleration of
-1.16x10^-10 m/s^2.
As this deceleration A(n) is intrinsic to the universe, it is INDEPENDENT of the mass
content of the universe, but must relate to the latter.
This is known as the Newtonian Omega in the SMC and relates
to scenarios of 'missing' mass and energy and more generally the ratios between actual and critical densities required for
the universe's geometrical topology dependenty on the spacetime curvatures.
We can see here however, that there
is no paradox, as the intrinsic universal deceleration can take account of any 'missing cosmological constants and quintessences'.
Many details of this have been worked out in the incomplete Theory of Quantum Relativity.
Understanding this,
the demetrication of the differential geometry of curved spacetime in the UNITY interval of the QR-Cosmology; we can finetune
the redshift scenario for the expanding universe, which is also ENVELOPES a Steady State of itself.
The EHO moves
with a recessional redshift of 0.2505 relative to the BBO and as the receding Hubble-Event-Horizon of the universe in 11D
itself.
But the conundrum will be the measurement of the BBO of anything to do with light if he does not take
into consideration, that what he observes and measures is located at a number of places simultaneously.
Measuring
a redshift will be decisive, but the interpretation of this measurement requires a deeper understanding, than the SMC presently
provides.
If the recessional redshift for the EHO is 0.2505, then what is the redshift of the universe at the
nodes?
Well, at the BBO, this redshift will be infinite according to SR and at the Hubble-Node, it will be z=0.291=Sqrt(5/3)-1,
because for n=1, v/c=0.25 in the intrinsic parametrical values given for the recession velocity V(n) before.
Now
using our present n=1.1324.., we will have to define a z-interval for the intersection of the lightpath in 11D INTERSECTING
the lightpath in 10D.
Now this is simple linear algebra and will specify a MAPPING of the z=:[0.251,0.291] interval
starting from the EHO as the mirror image starting with the BBO.
For n=1.1324, we obtain the linear image scalings
n=0.1324 and n=0.8676 and which correspond to recessional velocities 0.780c and 0.287c respectively.
These give the redshift
interval z=:[1.844,0.3435].
So we have an imaged redshift of 0.3435 in 10D for the actual present recession redshift
of 0.2506 in 11D, which is also 'presumed' to be applicable in 10D.
Relative to the BBO, the nodal redshift of
the asymptotic universe is 0.2506. But this is DISPLACED or PROJECTED (or figuratively TELEPORTED) from 10D into 11D.
Relative
to the BBO, the teleported z=0.2505 at n-coordinate n=1.1324 becomes situated at n=0.8676, corresponding to a linear distance
of (0.8676)(16.9 Gyears)~14.7 Billion lightyears.
So the universe is measured younger than it is and certain
redshift intervals will imply an accelerating universe in 10 dimensions which is in fact decelerating under intrinsically
harmonised parameters of its own dynamics, including its own intrinsic gravitation as an intrinsic deceleration.
Should
the BBO measure a redshift of z=1.844, then this redshift describes the NODE RELATIVE to the EHO as the unitary displacement
from the Hubble-Horizon in 11D back under c-invariance towards the BBO, also min 11D and for a cosmic NOW-Time of
n=0.1324 or 2.237.. Billion years.
In other words, after 2.237 Billion years or 2.237 Gyears after the Big Bang,
the recessional intrinsic velocity of the universe had redshift 1.844 for a V(0.1324)=0.7799..c=c/(1.1324)^2.
What
is the image coordinate for the node relative to the EHO?
The image coordinate for the present time is n=0.8676
and this specifies a 4.4 Billion year interval for the lightpath intersection. The redshift for this coordinate relative to
the BBO is so twice the fractal nodal separation i.e, delta-n=0.2648. As 1.1324-0.2648=0.8676, this delta-n will define the
imaged redshift relative to the BBO.
This calculates as z=1.082 from V(0.2648)=0.6251c.
So relative to the
BBO the redshift interval z=:[1.082-1.844-Infinity] for the n-interval n=:[0.8676-1-Present NOW], describes an INTERSECTING
HIGHER MULTIDIMENSIONAL cosmology and AS the redshift interval z:=[0.2505-0.291-0.3435] as its projection or teleportation
into YET NONEXPLORED INERTIALISED Spacetime containing mass.
Relative to the EHO, the redshift interval z=:[1.082-1.844]
defines this selfsame cosmology, but now LINEARISED and LOWERDIMENSIONAL as a double interval in the mapping
of the image coordinates z:=[1.082-1.844] for the n-interval [0.1324-0.2648].
The Standard Model Cosmology
so should rigorously apply a REDSHIFT CORRECTION to all cosmological redshift measurements.
Any redshift measured,
which exceeds the nodal image value of z=0.291 is appropriate for the HUBBLE FLOW and requires no correction, as the critical
redshift interval for the multidimensional lightpath intersection is [0.2505-0.291], with z=0.2505 describing a decreasing
variation-maximum over evolutionary cosmic time periods. For a gradient (0.3431-0.2910)/(0.0521)=1 then, an appropriate
linear equation for this is z(zm)=z(n)=zm.
A linear extrapolation subsequently 'Universal
Alpha Variation' centred on the redshift maximum, which QR has labeled as the Arpian Maximum or the Arpian Redshift.
The
Arpian Redshift zArp=0.2505 then maps z=1.082 and for a 'corrected' Hubble-Constant of 66.9 Hubble-Units
to describe the variation from the node for the present NOW-time n=Hot.
To describe
a LOCAL FLOW, the Arpian limit must be added to an expression for the measured redshift zm
to take the intrinsic parametrisation of the lightpath under gravitation into account. A linear formulation in QR for
the interval zm in [0-zArp] is: z(n)=(slope)zm+zArp and where the slope=0.0521/[zArp-zleftitnodalimage]=[0.291-0.2505]/[zleftitnodalimage] for a resulting slope=0.370 from [zleftitnodalimage]=0.1096.
The
Alpha-Redshift expression can then be used to calculate measured redshifts in the interval zm in
[zleftitnodalimage-zArp]: z(n)=0.370.zm +0.2505.
The Alpha-Blueshift expression can be used to calculate
measured redshifts in the interval zm in [zArp-zrightnodalimage]: z(n)=-1.284.zm+0.6646.
The left nodal image is z=0.1097
and the right nodal image is z=0.291, both mapping the true Hubble-Constant of 58.04 Hubble-Units as the n=1 coordinate for
z=1.844.
There will so be found a number of errors
in the distance calculations for objects in the Hubble-Flow by the SMC. The Local Flow redshifts are of course appropriate
as ordinary relativistc doppler shift calculations; but the Hubble Flow calculations are all in error, unless the above corrections
and interpolations are applied.
Then the 'curving away' of redshift data, say as used in the high redshift data
by Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter in 1998 in the analysis of supernova data, becomes a consequence of the coordinates from
the first nodal image at a measured redshift of z-0.11.
This of course caused a great furore in modern cosmology, with
the assumption of an 'accelerating universe' being born from it.
The universe will deviate from a 'measured' deceleration
in the cosmological redshift intervals as indicated. But this indicates the intersection of the lightpath of the asymptotic
mass parametric universe with its higher dimensional counterpart.
The universe is asymptotically decelerating,
anmd this is crystallized in the Alpha-Blueshift, which was also measured by Carl Webb in the analysis of light passing
through hydrogen clouds and originating from quasar redshifts in the same period and a result which also caused great controversy
in regards to a variation of the electromagnetic finestructure constant alpha.
Alpha is a true constant of immense
importance in QR and in all the Standard Models. There is however a variation in the Coulombic Charge Quantum; but this relates
to the PREMASS scenario indicated and can serve as a topic for ddebate, otherwise instigated.
I hope, that
most readers would have understood the crux of this essay; even if not not all readers would have followed the use of
basic linear algebra to describe the lightpath intersection.
Best of Science and Metaphysics to All.
Tony
B.
|
