Contents
Three
THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT
AND
HUBBLE'S CONSTANTClimb mountains to see lowlands.
Chinese Proverb
Albert Einstein published the first relativistic model of the universe in 1917, choosing a fourth-dimensional hypersphere as its shape. This sphere would be a very large one. So large that space would be curved only slightly, so slightly that it would seem that the universe is flat. The sphere as proposed originally was supposed to be static, neither expanding nor contracting.
When Einstein completed his general theory of relativity, he had a theory which seemed to tie together space, time, matter, and energy. The implications seemed to explain the universe itself. But there was a problem. Gravity pulls but does not push. With gravity pulling, in time, the universe would collapse. So Einstein added another term to his equations which would stabilize the universe by producing a long-range force throughout space. If the value of this term were positive, then the force would be repulsive. If the value were zero or negative, the universe would collapse. This term was called the "cosmological constant" and was assumed by Einstein to be positive, a kind of antigravity which would keep the universe from collapsing. And Einstein was able to keep his concept of a static, non-expanding, non-contracting universe.
Subsequent investigations by Arthur Stanley Eddington, Georges Edouard Lemaitre, Howard Percy Robertson, George Cunliffe McVittie, and others led to a non-static expanding hypersphere as a model. And since then, observations have indicated that the universe does appear to be expanding.
As distant objects appear to move away from us upon all sides, there is a "red shift" which means that short light waves must lengthen to be longer light waves. The degree of this shift indicates that the universe is expanding at a particular rate. These things were first discovered by Edwin Hubble, and the expansion rate came to be known as Hubble's constant.
Hubble's law states that the velocity of recession of a galaxy (other than our own) is directly proportional to its distance from us. This means that, at least within the range of the light that we can see, the universe appears to be expanding at a uniform rate. And this implies that the rest of the universe might be expanding at the same rate. The Hubble constant is found by dividing the perceived velocity of recession of a distant object (from us) by its distance from us.
There has been a problem with this constant as it implies that the universe is expanding too rapidly. If it has been expanding at its present rate since its beginning, the universe is much younger than is likely to be the case. Observations of various celestial bodies and their evolution indicate that the stars are older than the universe - if the expansion rate has been constant and if we use the cosmogical constant as a measure.
Late measurements of the the expansion rate indicate that the universe is expanding more rapidly as time passes. This means that it was probably expanding more slowly in times past. This would explain the discrepancy mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However, there is still a problem.
No logical reason has been found to explain why the universe appears to be expanding more rapidly with time. There have been many unlikely explanations for this expansion, but none that could be considered more than speculation.
Assuming that the universe is expanding as a fourth dimensional hypersphere (or otherwise as in some models), it would have originated at a point, complete with all of its "matter" and energy. Thus, when it first came into being, it would have been very dense, and pressure from its heavy concentration would have caused it to expand very rapidly. This rapid expansion would have been the biggest explosion ever conceived, so it was christened the "Big Bang."
If there is nether, it would have been expanding as any expandable and compressible fluid does when concentrated. When a gas is concentrated and is then allowed to expand rapidly, it is limited by its own inertia which can only be overcome with time. The inertia of its outer portions prevents its inner portions from expanding rapidly. So it begins by expanding more slowly than is indicated by simple pressure, and its rate of expansion increases as time passes.
I believe that today, the nether is still expanding and is expanding more rapidly as time passes. It is this accelerated nether expansion caused by nether pressure which, in turn, causes accelerated expansion of the universe. There is no antigravity, and "positive cosmological constant" is just so many meaningless words. When nether is taken into consideration, the mystery of more rapidly expanding "space" is solved.
A case has been made for the existence of nether (what was once called ether) and its role in creating the known forces of the universe. So it is time to discuss how it might be that nether must move into a body that is composed of a group of vorticles without appearing to move out again.
First of all, when two high-energy electromagnetic rays are introduced to one another (when they meet head-on) they cause the creation of two vorticles. One of the created vorticles is a "matter" type such as the electron, and the other is an "antimatter" type such as a positron. To date, no vorticle has ever been created separately. Always they must be created in mirrored pairs. This has been observed a number of times and is an established fact.
The electron that has been created in this manner is a normal "matter" type electron. However, the positron, a positively charged electron, is an anti-matter vorticle. And now, I am going to mention the questionable words, "fourth dimension." Each dimension we know has two directions. One of the two horizontal dimensions has the directions north and south. The other has the directions east and west. The vertical dimension has the directions up and down.
Assuming that the extreme energy of high-energy electromagnetic rays actually tears a hole in three-dimensional space and allows nether to spill into a fourth dimension, the nether would have two directions into which it could flow. One would be that of the matter vorticle, the other, that of the antimatter vorticle. If this fourth dimension is a form of time, we could say that in a vorticle of standard matter such as an electron, the nether passes into the past while in a vorticle of anti-matter, the nether passes into the future. However, the fourth dimension may or may not be a time dimension.
It does seem most logical that the tearing of the nether in our three dimensional space, would (1) create a hole that would go in two directions, (2) cause flow into these holes which becomes two equal and opposite vortices with the same initial tangential direction of flow, and (3) cause centrifugal force from the vortices to keep the holes open once they were formed.
Equal and opposite vortices means that there would be initially, and only momentarily, one very obvious vortex open at each end and going in opposite directions of the fourth dimension. It would look like a hotdog in a bun at first with the bun open at the ends, and each end being a hole into the fourth dimension. One end would go in one direction, and the other in the opposite direction. The bun would be just one spinning Mass of nether.
The bun would immediately break in the middle to allow for maximum flow into the two directions (geometrically, there is more area for inward flow when the vorticles are separated). When the bun breaks in the middle, one end becomes the electron and the other becomes the positron. They can move off in their own directions until the positron meets the same or another electron, at which point the two vorticles annihilate each other because the flow in the two directions cancel, and the same energy that created the original vorticles is re-introduced into the nether.
To me, this is the only scenario that makes any sense. Two equal but oppositely charged vorticles definitely indicates two directions, and two directions indicates one fourth dimension. Whether or not this fourth dimension is a kind of time remains to be seen. However, it is definitely not one of our three dimensions.
Once the nether disappears into the fourth dimension, does it become nothing, flow out in a straight line, disperse from its centrifugal force, or do something else? What are some of the possibilities?
One theory that I have seriously considered is that the nether was first introduced by the nothingness of space splitting into positive and negative substances one of which became our universe of positive nether. When this splitting occurred, it was in alternate layers of positive and negative nether which have a total of zero when re-united. The space in which the expansion occurred had four dimensions.
This alternating in layers from a point in space made a vibration which is sometimes called a word or a sound because it is analogous to sound as a vibration. When the universe began as what we call the big bang, it was probably spinning in space. Centrifugal force and nether pressure caused the universe to explode outward.
The alternate layers became like expanding bubbles, slightly bloated in the direction of centrifugal force (their four-dimensional equators), and they grew rapidly outward along the fourth dimension while the nether in each bubble layer occupied a space of three dimensions. Perhaps this sounds strange, but to us, the fourth dimension appears at 45 degrees to the three we know, and these bubbles can expand outward along the fourth dimension. When energy is highly concentrated at a point in our space of three dimensions, very likely it does more than simply tear three-dimensional space. It might create a "bump" in our space that pierces through the usual barrier of nothingness between universes so that a vorticle is produced here, and where it touches the adjacent universe, a vorticle is produced simultaneously in that adjacent universe as well. This would mean that the opposite might be the case as well, where a vorticle is produced by concentrated energy in the adjacent universe and causes one to be produced here simultaneously. So it is possible that matter is sometimes being created here without the concentration of energy.
The fourth-dimensional sphere as a model for our universe, as presented here, is the result of my own thought processes. However, after first working on this theory I stumbled across the fact that a German mathematician, Georg F. B. Riemann, proposed a single fourth-dimensional hypersphere of essentially the same kind as far back as the middle of the 19th century. Later, Einstein chose this as the overall shape of our universe.
The reasons that the foregoing theory is likely to be correct are:
1. The likelihood of a universe being created from nothing without it having at least an equivalent but opposite universe is not logical. Nothing is the sum of positive and negative. If we call the space (nether) of our universe positive, then the balancing universe must have negative space (nether).
2. The odds of creating just two fourth-dimensional bubbles at a time are slight, and there must be a third if vorticles and anti-vorticles are created together. This would make two fourth-dimensional directions a necessity, with flow from our universe moving into an adjacent universe on each side of ours. Three universes cause an imbalance because they would not add up to zero, so a fourth must be introduced. If there must be at least four, why not more? Of course, this thinking creates a situation where either there are an infinite number of expanding universes "nested" together, or the inside-most and the outside-most will be slightly different from the rest. But that is all right. They might easily be different.
3. The basic shape of a "sphere" is necessary because the sudden separation of nothing into two opposite somethings would create a very strong big bang with nether opposing itself in each universe to expand equally in all outward directions.
4. The spheres would be expanding because the nether composing them was introduced all at once at a point.
5. The universes would logically be created while rotating because the odds of them being exactly synchronized with the emptiness around them is astronomical. Furthermore, the fact that we seem to have at least two partly stable vorticles of matter (as opposed to anti-matter) infers that an equivalent to coriolis force may be involved.
6. The rotation would cause the spheres to bulge at their equators.
7. The cosmological constant would better agree with the age of the universe as the universe is depicted here. It does not work with presently accepted theories.
8. The fact that rotation and centrifugal force exist seems to mean that there is a true frame of spatial reference. This is contrary to Einstein's special theory of relativity, but completely explained by the existence of nether and a true frame of spatial reference.
9. There is a question, today, regarding the apparent ratio between matter and antimatter. It is possible that many of the other galaxies, far distant from our own, are composed of largely antimatter. If they are not, then why do we seem to have only a preponderance of matter in our universe? Since matter and antimatter seem to be created simultanously in equal amounts, why should there be more of one than there is of the other?
One possible explanation may be that, due to the touching of adjacent spheres to create vorticles, there is a tendency for more matter to appear in our universe at one side, and for more antimatter to appear at the opposite side. The spheres would have sides in the sense that they would have a fourth-dimensional inside and a fourth-dimensional outside. The fourth-dimensional direction toward the inside of our universe would be the one to cause one type of vorticle, and the fourth-dimensional direction toward the outside of our universe would be the one to cause the other type of vorticle.
Between the geographic areas of matter and antimatter vorticles, the two types would have annihilated one another long ago and their energy would have gone in a multitude of directions.
There is another possible scenario for the creation portion in paragraph five. The rotation when the universe was born might have been extremely rapid. In this case, the centrifugal force would cause a greater initial acceleration outward in the plane of rotation. All of the nether would move out from the center to form a ring which would quickly become a doughnut (or a bagel, or a smoke ring, or an inner tube). The universe would continue to expand in the shape of a doughnut, and its angular rotation would decrease as the doughnut expanded radially away from the point where it started.
If we make the assumption that a negative nether universe will follow from the same point of creation, separated only by time, then we will have another smaller expanding doughnut inside the larger first doughnut. Both will be expanding outward from their mutual point of creation, and both will also be expanding like an inner tube when more air is pumped into it.
The universes would remain separated by time if the separation and the centrifugal force are sufficient to prevent the expanding positive and negative nethers from touching. If they should touch, the points that touch would become nothing once more.
There is no way I can prove what happens in the center of a vorticle - at least not at this time. However, I am certain that at the center of each is a nearly perfect vacuum into which nether flows and that the hole in our three dimensions is maintained by the centrifugal force of the spiral flow.
I am also certain that the big bang was caused by "nothing" separating into portions of positive and negative nether whose total was still nothing. The big bang would logically have occurred with the nether spinning since the odds of it not spinning at that time are astronomically low. If the universe is still spinning slightly, and if there is more than one long-term stable vorticle of matter with its mirrored antimatter twin, it may be that the spinning causes coriolis force which creates a bias allowing for more than one stable vorticle. So a vortex turning in one direction would take in more nether than one turning in the other direction. A semi-stable vorticle, such as the proton or a quarkon (quark with part or all of a gluon attached), might then be more massive (take in more nether Mass per second) than the less massive electron or positron.
Some years ago, there was an article in Scientific American about gravity very slowly lessening in the universe. This would happen as the nether flows out and the nether pressure in the universe is reduced. But the vorticles are very small holes with much nether between, so it will be a long time before gravity is significantly reduced. The expansion of the universe also reduces the pressure of the nether in the universe - at a much faster rate. The two forces combined mean that gravity may well be lessening at a rate that we can see. Since this book was first published, there have been more experiments and research that show (1) the universe is flat - not curved as Einstein considered it to be, and (2) gravity is remaining constant insofar as we can perceive it.
If the pressure of the nether is the force behind the increasing rate of expansion of the universe, and if the nether flow through the fourth dimension is reducing the nether pressure in the universe, the density of the nether and the nether pressure will be lessening at a slower and slower rate. This means that it will take an infinitely long time for the nether to disappear. In one form or another, the universe may last forever.
According to at least one article, when gravity is reduced sufficiently, the universe will not be the same because its various forces will conceivably change relative to one another. Perhaps this is true. Regardless, this would happen very slowly and we won't be around to see it - at least not as we are now.
Contents - Next