The Fabric of Space

With black holes and the UVS taken care of, why not tackle Relativity's great mystery - The Fabric of Space?

It didn't really happen that way.  The UVS and the belief that spiral galaxies were created and driven by massive gravity wells were ideas I'd carried forward from childhood and adolescence and the solution I'd come up with for black holes, as far as I was concerned, was just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I had no intention of tackling anything else but, with the 'discovery' of Dark Matter beginning to make news in the late 90's, I started thinking, I've got to get this stuff on the Web.

As more and more stories about Dark Matter hit the popular media, characterizing it as some new kind of exotic and mysterious substance, I couldn't believe that the cosmological community wasn't adding one to one and coming up with the UVS.

I really, really needed to get this stuff on the Web.

Once I started, I found that I'd stuck my fist into a hornet's nest, as issue after issue buzzed out, trying to sting me.  Quantum Theory, which I hadn't  thought about since Feynman and college, suddenly had to be dealt with.  Particle/wave duality, photons, the mathematical nature of Reality and a host of other issues became dragons to be slain before I could move forward.  I was back to childhood,  falling to sleep in the deep hours of the night with hoards of ideas raging through my mind.

A project that I'd thought would take a month or two was beginning to look endless but I finally wound up with the first version of this website and a rambling essay chronicling the incredibly messy process I'd gone through to reach it.

Worn out but happy that I'd finally gotten the UVS and Black Holes out in the open, I started thinking about The Fabric of Space.  Even more than black holes, its nature seemed hidden beyond knowing.  Going back to the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein's numbers told him that 'Space'  was warped by mass, a process we call Gravity, which strongly implied that 'Space' had physical properties.  But those numbers couldn't tell him what those properties where.  So he coined the term, Fabric of Space, and had done with it.  Incredibly, so did everyone else, mathematician and scientist alike; in the century since the introduction of General Relativity, absolutely no has seriously tackled the Fabric.

Yet, during that century, everyone has joined in the blather about Gravity, ignoring the fact that, until you understand the Fabric, you can't understand Gravity.  This was one of the issues I'd had to deal with with version 1.0 of this website and is also one of the reasons Cosmologists keep calling Gravity a Force, even a century after Einstein demonstrated that Gravity is not a Force but a process.

Irritating, that so many pretend to understand the elephant without actually seeing it. It was that pretense and my irritation with it that pissed me off enough to try tackling the unknowable.

My first idea was that the UVS itself was the Fabric but, after a lot of though, it became clear that, by containing most of mass of the Universes, the UVS had to be a warper, not a warpee.  So I tried another dragon I'd wrestled with in 1.0: Parallel and Alternate Universes. Specifically, the idea of a Parallel but oppositely charged Universe, sharing the same space as us, like a shadow, with the Fabric as the divider.  I really liked this idea, it seemed so simple and elegant but it failed in detail.  For example, if you and anti-you live in New York but one of the two of you decides to move to London, you both risk waking up one day in the middle of both Atlantic Oceans; the simple and elegant idea suddenly became convoluted and ugly.  Unless everything, particle to particle and process to process, behaves identically the whole thing collapses.

But maybe, I thought, the two Universes could get away with a little less exactitude, so I began with independence and free will on the planetary level, then solar systems and then galaxies and then it was obvious it could never work.  The slightest variation on any level would bring the whole thing crashing down, at least until you got to the universe level and then the two universes would no longer be parallel.  No deal and I was stymied.

I hadn't expected to succeed so I wasn't particularly disappointed by these failures but, as I tried to disengage, my subconscious wouldn't let go or allow us to abandon the subject; So, I told him, If you come up with something, let me know.  After a while he did - not a full blown solution, only a quirk of the imagination: while we live in three spatial dimensions, we can only conceptualize in two.

OK, I said to my subconscious, So what?  Well, think about it, my  subconscious answered caustically.

Look, I said, pissed, tired of the whole thing, I'm not as smart as you and if you can't be civil, keep your thoughts to yourself.

Just think about it was the huffy reply.

So, I thought, we live in a universe of three spatial dimensions but can only think in two, that's  why we call gravity wells gravity wells and don't even have a word for their three dimensional reality.  By extension, then, would someone living in a two spatial dimension universe have the same problem, living in two but conceptualizing in one?  Probably, and probably the same for a one-dimensional creature.  So what? and then I began getting an inkling of what my subconscious was trying to tell me, just a little tickle until my memory chimed in and said, Remember that hydrogen/helium/electron universe and how smooth it would have been, with no potential for evolution, stuck forever with nothing larger than small, lonely suns.

I still didn't quite understand but I knew we were going somewhere and that it had to do with the size and mass of the particles any universe contained.
My subconscious and memory had had their say so the rest was up to me, consciously, to figure out.  At first, I got nowhere except to the point of knowing that I was looking at the answer but couldn't see it.  Then, bless his grisly little soul, my subconscious pipped in again and said, Try removing the Fabric.

Well, of course, without the Fabric you get universes that are uniformly dense, smooth and massless, a little bumpier, potentially, the more spatial dimensions you add but all incapable of any kind of evolution and Bingo! I had it.  Put those universes in a spatial dimension one dimension larger than their own.

Any universe, finite or infinite, of x spatial dimensions would have to be uniform in density and its matter massless if restricted to that x number of spatial dimensions:  there simply isn't any room for variations in density and no reason for matter to have mass.  A one-dimensional universe could only be a line of virtually identical "particles", a two dimensional universe can only be a "sheet" of virtually identical particles, and a three dimensional universe a ball of virtually identical particles.  But if you put those universes in a x+1 dimensional context, you suddenly have all the room you need for particles to clump together, extruding into that x+1 context.  That extrusion enables mass and suddenly you have gravity.  If you start those universes spinning, gravity intensifies and becomes uni-directional.

The Fabric of Space isn't a Fabric at all, it's an addition spatial dimension hosting each x-dimensional universe.

Wow! Kudos to my subconscious and memory, my subconscious particularly.  We'd all solved the unsolvable.  A mystery that no one had dared to touch for a hundred years.  Best of all, the solution was every bit as simple and elegant as you could want.

I still needed to do a little testing on the mechanics before declaring victory: for example, did finite universes curl back on themselves, one-dimensional universes becoming circles, two dimensional universes spheres and three dimensional universes, like us, a shape we have no name for, the common feature of all being that every particle in each universe abuts that x+1 spatial context?  Yes.

And what's to keep the matter of each universe from flying off into their context universe?  The speed of light or, more precisely, its limit.  It's the waves of energy moving through the UVS that, essentially, glues everything together with the limit on their speed acting like the cap on the bottle.
It gets better: the UVS now becomes essential: sizable vacuums would blow the whole thing apart.

Photons, by definition massless, would fly off into the x+1 universe at birth and never be a part of ours.

Mathematics as the definition of Reality goes straight out the door taking Quantum Theory with it.

And many other good things.

The solution passed every test I could think of until, finally, I stood back, amazed: was it really this simple, this easy?  Actually, Yes.

The clincher is the fact than any universe has to be uniformly dense by itself: there has to be the context of an x+1 spatial dimension to allow for variations in density and then everything else follows.

Make a Free Website with Yola.