Friday, December 31, 2010

THE BIG BLOB THEORY

This entry is a deviation of my ongoing narrative.  But it is something I've been wanting to say, and New Year's Eve seems like a good time to say it.

In this post I will attempt to describe a Model of the Universe that I have been contemplating for some time.  Of course I am not an astrophysicist or a cosmologist, or any other kind of scientist who could propose some theoretical basis which could be proven by a series of complex equations.

I did, however, present this model to Professor James Gates, John S. Toll Professor & Director of the Center for String & Particle Theory at the University of Maryland, who very matter-of-factly said, "Oh yes, that is the Theory of an Infinitely Expanding Universe."

I'm not sure if my Big Blob Theory is exactly the same as that, because it's not infinitely expanding. It is based on some "proven" models:
  1. Space-Time is curved.
  2. Black holes exist.
And on some models which may be  more mathematical than real at the moment:

  1. There are multiple/many dimensions of the universe and reality.
  2. There are parallel or multiple universes.

In the Big Blob, the Universe is sometimes expanding, sometimes contracting, through vertices of Black Holes.  The Black Holes are portals to parallel universes (which are not strictly parallel in a geometrical sense, but which are coexisting).  The spatial-temporal positions of the Black Holes may also vary.  Each parallel universe is another dimension, but the number of these other dimensions can vary over space and time.

Think of the Universe as breathing through the Black Holes.  Sometimes the space-time beyond a given Black Hold is moving inward, while that beyond another Black Hole may be moving outward.  Over time, the dimensions beyond Black Holes may disappear or collapse into another dimension when they have fully contracted, and other Black Holes may appear at other space-time locations.  Therefore the potential number of "Blobs"/Black Holes is infinite.  Perhaps it would be better to call them "Blebs" rather than "Blobs", but I think Blobs just sounds better.

From our position, we can see only the curved space-time of the dimension we exist in, but because it is curved the borders will be indistinct and will be perceived as infinite. There is an infinite number of possible perspectives, just as there is an infinite number of ways to slice a sphere.  But this does not mean the Universe is spherical.

Attempts to explain the Universe with super-string theory represent different planes and intersecting nodes of these dimensions. But (I think) the super-strings represent only one point in time, and there could be (and are) infinite points.

I think this explains in simple terms the interchangeability of waves and particles in electromagnetic radiation.  Particles and hence mass would exist where nodes of waves/super-strings intersect and interact with each other.

I would like to be able to show you an animated depiction of this model. This video of superheated water comes close:




Now because these Blobs can occur in or branch off from an infinite number of places in one dimension, there could (or would) also be an infinite number of branches from each Blob.  In other words, "our" Blob may be a Bleb of another Blob. I think, but am not sure at this moment, that this means the Universe could ultimately fold back upon itself like a Klein bottle or a multi-dimensional Möbius strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle), in which the blobs or time-space intersect. And of course this could happen in an infinite number of ways. Evidently the Möbius strip model of the Universe has been the basis of some science fiction stories, so this part of the model is not a new idea.

What is different here is the "Klein bottle" is multi-dimensional, but that the number of these dimensions can vary.  For a more rigorous explanation of multiple universes, or multiverses, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation.  I don't pretend to understand everything in this article, but somehow I think it's related to what I'm saying here.

This model is totally intuited, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.  In any case, it can't be proven or disproven from our perspective, so it's as good as any other.  This ambiguity must be a feature of any correct model because any strict mathematical proof would be finite and the Universe in this model is infinite.

Now I think I'll have another glass of wine and see what else I can imagine.

It's just now midnight. Happy New Year to one and all.  Let us hope we can survive another year without destroying ourselves and our universe, as this superheated water does.

-bjd

No comments:

Post a Comment