Discussion on Grava and Cosmology

Dear Jim,

Thanks, again, for such a detailed and eloquent response. My correspondence with you is like a Socratic dialogue!

You have pointed out many of the issues that I have deliberately provoked. When I began reading the Elegant Universe, I was hoping for a story with a happy conclusion. Frankly, I was disappointed to see that not only were we farther from the elegant picture than I expected, but the hoped-for solution at this junction depends upon x-number of dimensions in space that may either surround the world we are familiar with or may exist in some other invisible level of reality.

As a software developer, I am accustomed to dealing with objects that have properties, events and methods. My gut reaction was to wonder: What are the properties, events and methods of the most basic entities of matter? Actually, I saw the string model leading to this type of perspective. One could say, for example, that the 2-dimensional string may be the lowest level of energy or mass. With this approach, we could argue that the properties, events and methods of the smallest unit of energy or mass would be those of the 2-dimensional string.

I was particularly impressed by Feynman’s formulation of quantum mechanics stating that particles must be viewed as traveling from one location to another along every possible path. In the noted experiment, page 110 of EU, one electron actually goes through two slits to ultimately arrive at one point beyond only one slit. Of course, the obvious question is where does the energy come from to enable such movement so rapidly in so many (infinite) different directions? I did not find a satisfactory answer to this question anywhere in EU. In my puzzlement, I began to hypothesize that space itself may have the capacity to provide this type of energy. This is a classic case of what I call a subgrava event, drawing upon the energy of the total universe to move the electron in so many directions and in little or no time. If the energy to move the electron so radically did not come from the electron itself, then it must have come from a surrounding field. It could not have come from the electron, because such acceleration would require a much greater amount of energy than can be attributed to the moving object itself.

Thus I began to wonder about the basic properties, events and methods of space, at the lowest, most rudimentary levels. In my limited reading, I have not encountered any theory that attributes to space itself this type of power. In the Scientific American Magazine, I recently read about the LHC near Geneva that will possibly be able to detect the presence of the Higgs boson. I began to relate the question of Feynman’s formulation to the question of the source of mass for emerging energy quanta.

My model of grava as a super-field is meant to pose a solution to these questions in such a way as to stimulate more attention to the question of the basic properties of space itself. From my limited knowledge, space has never been given much credit for any function or potential other than a passive gap between other more significant items, such as energy, mass, etc. The extra dimensions in EU are attributed the potential to comprise energy levels that may solve some of the most difficult questions we face today.  Yet EU does not embrace the  3D space we live in as a party to this hoped-for solution.

A more complete model of the universe, from my perspective, would provide due attention to the stuff between particles and waves. This does not automatically denounce the presence of gravitons or Higgs bosons, I admit. But I would like to provoke more discussion on this issue by posing that it does. Thus, we need to look at space as a field, not as the absence of anything else. The more I thought about it, this field, which I call grava, constantly interacts with all forms of mass and energy and mediates the petitions for space-time and mass-energy for all parties involved. All parties involved, actually encompasses the entire universe, and all at one time.

In respond to specific issues:

Issue: EU doesn't need a beginning per se. The math works in both directions
time wise.

Response: The grava model has a finite starting point. This is an intentional abstraction that starts with an unshaped lump of energy, point zero, and steps to the form of grava, followed by the negotiation of rules and standards, etc. During the negotiation process, there may be several stages where the quanta are of a different scale. Temporary standards, so to speak. There is also the possibility that parts of this cohesive universe may actually separate, either early in the process, or after billions of years.

There may also be a continuous process of evaluating the total energy of the universe and the speed of light may adjust accordingly.  A severe contraction may also occur at some point in the future, which may trigger a point of re-negotiation. The contraction may not go totally to point zero. These possibilities are intended to be posed as theoretical abstractions, not so much based on scientific measurements. In other words, we need to look at the full range of logical scenarios before we determine the areas of focus for serious investigation. The information that I have read so far on the standard big bang model seems to be somewhat debatable with respect to the absolute starting point or the possibility of total contraction, or near-total contraction at some point in the future. The important point here is that the grava model provides the structure for an absolute start, at least in theory, whereas the standard model has problems with the point zero question.

With grava, it’s possible to support both a finite starting point and periodic contractions. With the standard model, the rules fall apart at point zero, leading us to the ‘Big Crunch’ model primarily because we can’t see how to go any further based on the standard rules. The main thing grava adds to the dialog is a concentrated focus on this stuff called space. It’s this space, in the form of grava, that could help to take us to places that our current concepts cannot reach.

Issue: In the EU view, the six plausible mathematical descriptions turn out naturally to be paired in such a way that two of the equations are actually the same, but somewhat disguised in ways that were not immediately obvious.

Response: I believe the mathematical models are very useful to help us understand the relationships of the various levels and types of energy and particles. But, unfortunately, up to now they have not taken us to home plate. There is also, I fear, a tendency to fixate on the mathematical models without exploring other possible perspectives. Even if we someday discover a mathematical model based on multi-dimensional shapes that provides a clean equation to relate all type of forces, it will still leave a lot of questions unanswered.

I would like to look at the string model as something more basic. For anything to move in the physical world, it must have three dimensions. Emerging energy, much like Feynman’s electron, may have radically different properties. At the subgrava level, there may be patterns of energy that are similar to harmonic resonance.  An emerging energy quantum, for example, may have less than two dimensions at one point.

The math behind harmonics is actually very simple, and may be simulated by a simple array of factors. The grava model would suggest that the rules and standards that apply to the various forces as we see them today are based on the accidental process of negotiation between grava and raw energy that took place at the inception of the universe (or the current instance of the universe). The primary factor governing the math was the absolute amount of raw energy. The mathematical relationships between the constants may be congruent with a multidimensional model. Unfortunately, we may be placing ourselves in the dilemma of finding any model that fits the facts. This will prove nothing other than a skill at creating complex mathematical models to fit just about any type of complex phenomenon. With the pliability of multi-dimensional Calabi-Yau shapes, this may be a real logical hazard.

Issue: ...There do not need to be infinitesimally small spaces with infinite energy or mass densities; and…

Response: Going back to Feynman’s electrons, the "sum-over-paths" approach, I believe we owe ourselves a better explanation for this type of phenomena, even though the phenomenon may be resolved by a very trustworthy quantum equation. Grava theory revisits this phenomenon with the structure of a field that contributes the energy and form needed to help explain "How can one electron simultaneously take different paths—and no less than an infinite number of them?" (EU, pp.111).

Issue: ...That a universe undergoing a "Big Crunch" will rebound into a Big Bang as soon as it is compressed to a small enough (non-zero) size.

Response: Grava contributes to this issue the support of the field that is devoted to providing form and negotiating rules for emerging energy (expanding or contracting) at any point of the gamut. The classical and string perspectives attempt to explain all such events by formulas that are utterly dependent on the quanta and discrete particles themselves. Grava says that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The super-field does important things than no individual part or collection of parts can accomplish on their own.

Issue: It is not clear what you mean when you describe Grava as a field. Although I must say, in all fairness, a mathematician would say that a field is any function that describes some (any) property of space (not just force).

Response: This is simply the main challenge and contribution of the grava theory. It is intended to establish an entirely new perspective on a force beyond any particles, quanta or collections of such in the universe. How do formless quanta acquire form or mass? Scalar particles? Higgs bosons? How do Feynman’s electrons move everywhere in no time?  What particles or forces are the agents of gravity?  Einstein’s theory of general relativity attributes the force of gravity to the fabric of the cosmos, space itself. Space is curved in relation to mass and distance. The curvature of space creates the forces that pull objects towards each other. Even though we are familiar with these concepts, which have been accepted and proven by scientific measurements, most of us regard the role of space as a passive one. Space can move mountains, oceans, planets, stars and galaxies. There is nothing too large or too small to be affected by space and gravity. Yet, we tend to regard space as one of the most incidental parts of the formula. Now that we are looking at theoretical extra dimensions of space, we are fascinated by the many forms that space may take through the eye of our imaginations. Grava takes the role of space even further by posing that the super-field of grava has a momentum of its own, even though all material events contribute to it. Grava is devoted to prying into and mediating the business of all quanta and emerging quanta in the universe, including strings and emerging strings (if they exist).

Issue: This is reminiscent of a philosophical dilemma in quantum theory that so far hasn't gone away. Some people refer to it as "sub-atomic communication".

Response: Yes, and thank-you for the suggestion. Sub-atomic communication is another candidate for the field of grava, much like Feynman’s ubiquitous electron. This phenomenon of sub-atomic communication faster than the speed of light may very well be supported by the sub-grava status. The super-field of grava provides the energy to accomplish super-scale communication at the sub-atomic level. Through grava, all events are in immediate communication. Grava summarizes the energy of each and all events and imposes rules and standards that result in the predictable phenomena we see and measure with our instruments. The sub-grava status is the process of negotiation between all petitioning emerging quanta, each requesting infinite space and mass now.

Issue: Interestingly, EU sees space (whether four-dimensional or eleven) NOT as "nothing" or "empty" but as a real physical entity. Space is the "something" you can put "stuff" (mass/energy) into. The difference is that, in EU, the stuff in the space shapes the space, not the reverse (if that is sort of what you have in mind).

Response: Yes there is a fundamental difference in the way space is viewed from the EU perspective and from the grava perspective. Grava theory can re-interpret the string concept of space in a different structure. String theory doesn’t attempt to explain ordinary events such as emerging quanta (Feynman’s electrons, sub-atomic communication) in the way that grava theory does. String theory focuses on events that theoretically occurred at the primordial dawn of the universe, which in consequence may explain the rules and standards of the universe in terms of mathematical multi-dimensional models. The spatial "stuff" of string theory is archival. Grava theory supports a mathematical model of archival events that may resemble multi-dimensional space. Grava theory does not require that such mathematical models are or were actually represented in the space of the universe either now or at any time.

The super-field of grava was prominent in negotiating the establishment of the rules and standards of the universe, which may possibly, but not necessarily, have been through the agent of energy fields that resemble multi-dimensional space. Grava theory does not demean the value of a mathematical model that can help to explain the steps and phenomena that led to the rules and constants that exist today. A basic difference is that grava was there before any spatial dimensions were there. The field of grava preceded and helped to form the fabric of space with any and all dimensions possible. Grava defines mass and energy as two dimensions of matter, adding to the other four space-time dimensions for a total of six dimensions, and no more. At point zero of the universe, only shapeless energy existed. Grava provided the form and process by which all other dimensions of mass-energy and time-space were defined. Grava continues to provide the essential role of forming emerging energy into the quanta that we see in our microscopic experiments and measurements. The extra-dimensional objects of string theory have no purported role at this level. Grava theory provides a theoretical structure for emerging energy at pre-dimension, pre-string levels. String theory proclaims that the smallest reduction of matter and energy must have at least two dimensions and probably more.

Issue: The WHOLE universe, including the space that held it, was smaller than a subatomic particle. The small universe contained ALL its space in that small size, and there was NOTHING (whatever that is) outside it.

Response: The grava perspective helps us understand what happens when things compress below the Planck level all the way down to zero dimensions. Current theories, whether conventional or like EU, either see this as impossible, or cannot support such a phenomenon. The super-field of grava is not utterly dependent on mass/energy shapes. It’s the other way around. String theory helps to explain how zero space could never happen. Grava theory gives space the ability to form from zero space, due to the basic nature of energy in its most primitive form, utterly shapeless.

Issue: When matter/energy expanded, it dragged the space along with it, warping, twisting, modifying it as it went. The warps, twists, and modifications give rise to the forces we see today.

Response: Grava theory teaches paradoxically that while expanding matter/energy do twist and pull on space, so does space, the super-field of grava, pull and press on matter/energy. These are, in a sense, reciprocal entities. If space were utterly dependent on the quanta of mass and energy that push and pull it in different ways, the challenge to string theory or conventional theory would be to explain how space responds to each vector of energy? String theory would probably benefit by postulating an independent source for extra-dimensional events: a force much like grava. Otherwise, the chicken and the egg question may complicate the issue further. What causes the string shapes to occur in the first place? Electrons? Photons? Higgs bosons? Quarks? Some amalgam of energy that only existed once in the past? The super-field of grava?

Issue: In this point of view, everything today is in the same relative location as it was at (before?) the Big Bang, except that matter/energy has long since crystallized into separated matter AND energy, which are now (still) connected through forces that were born when matter/energy was torn apart into matter and energy, warping space in the process.

Response: Grava serves as the ultimate divider, shaper and integrator of mass-energy. The distances between objects were and are established by rules that grava helped to establish in the process of forming the universe at the dawn of time. What we perceive as billions of light years between stars is no challenge to the super-field of grava.

Issue: Rules in the universe (a fun topic): There has been an ongoing debate about whether the Constants (speed of light, gravitational constant, mass of fundamental particles, the Planck energy constant, etc.) are universal values existing for all times and places, or just local traffic rules appropriate for only a particular region of space-time. In particular, are they time dependent?

Response: The contribution that grava theory adds to this discussion is that the phenomenon that created the rules in the first place, may very well be continuing in a day-to-day process at different levels. Everyday emerging energy quanta go through a similar process of demanding an infinite amount of space and mass from the surrounding fields. Grava plays the role of the mediator between all competing petitioners. Grava theory does not support the position of universal values. Everything was and is negotiated at various levels through grava. In time we shall expect further research, astronomical discoveries and LHC experiments to shed more light on this issue.

Issue: Is the time it takes for a signal to get from point A to point B in the universe a fixed value? If space is expanding, so is the "distance" between point A and point B. If the time is constant, the speed of light is increasing. The opposite argument says the speed is decreasing. Then there is the issue of what one means by "time", in a world where space-time is still drastically shrunk just after a Big Bang.

Response: Grava theory holds that the super-field of grava plays an active role in balancing all the forces of the universe and adjusting the standards accordingly. As described by Einstein, everything moves at the speed of light when time is viewed as a reciprocal dimension of space-time. Increasing speed decreases time and increases mass. Grava attempts to simplify this equation by describing mass, energy, space and time all as dimensions of matter. The challenge to grava theory would be to identify the math that relates the total mass-energy of the universe to the constants related to space-time and mass-energy. For example, is there a simple 1:1 ratio between the total energy/mass of the universe and the speed of light? Adding the factor of time to such an equation would be more complete. I would be interested in knowing whether anyone has attempted to come up with some kind of formula that would relate the total mass-energy of the universe with the speed of light?

Issue: Dimensions of energy, mass, time, and 3D space: a full description in only these terms would have to answer why the different particles have the masses they have, and how the measured forces between particles arise. This is a main driver for EU and its extra dimensions. If they extra dimensions are not necessary, the theory will have to explain what IS necessary.

Response: Grava theory supports an accidental array of constants in the universe brought about by events at the dawn of time governed primarily by the total energy of the universe. This perspective doesn’t rule out the possibility of harmonic phenomena playing a major role in the process. When a string vibrates in our familiar domain, the harmonics are based on the vibrating element, its length, its composition, the housing that supports it and the air that conveys the vibrations to our ears. When we’re talking about a primordial event where there is no air, no defined housing, and many other undefined elements, the math behind the harmonics may follow a number of unfamiliar patterns. 

The field of grava supports the vibrations of emerging energy in every pattern possible, including harmonic patterns. Grava provides a universal space in which emerging elements may vibrate in many different ways. Just like emerging energy demands all space and all mass now, emerging energy also is oriented towards vibrating in all ways possible. The vibrations are an important part of the negotiation process, much like Feynman’s electrons that move in all directions simultaneously. Harmonic phenomena are based on efficient patterns of movement based on the physical restraints of the vibrating element, the housing and the ether in which the element must vibrate. The housing provides resonance that reinforce or mitigate the vibrations of the element. We may think of grava as providing both the housing and the ether surrounding the vibrating element. Grava reinforces those vibrations that are harmonious with surrounding petitioners and with key elements of the entire universe. The elements that vibrate from the grava perspective are primitive three-dimensional objects. The surrounding structure, resonance and ether provided by grava account for the resulting array of harmonics that may resemble the math of multi-dimensional objects.

Issue: … So the approach described in EU says, "let's imagine that there are closed loops of "something" that can oscillate. And, "let's assume that there is a different, orthogonal axis (dimension) for each independent characteristic"...Let me go further to add, though, that if the dimensions are only mathematical, and not physical, then it will beg the next question: Why are the answers harmonic? Any comprehensive theory will have to be able to answer that question.

Response: The grava perspective supports the possibility of harmonic vibrations that result from three-dimensional elements vibrating in a structure and ether provided by grava. As stated above, grava reinforces those vibrations that are harmonious with surrounding petitioners and with key elements of the entire universe. The orthogonal axis of the emerging element changes along with the frequency in all ways possible and all this happens now.  Harmonic patterns are the most simple fractions possible given the length of the element and the frequency. The multi-orthogonal schema may be visualized by a single three-dimensional element changing its axis in different directions much like a baton in the hands of a baton twirler. The baton is twirling, spinning, twisting and rotating in all directions and continuously vibrating in all possible frequencies. Grava reinforces the most efficient expressions of energy and provides a milieu for sympathetic reinforcement by competing elements. This results in three-dimensional multi-axis harmonics (3DMAH) in contrast to the multi-dimensional shapes in EU.

Issue: …In that spirit, I'm not sure how to interpret the comments about isolation of, say, black holes. The evidence is that they are no more isolated than a person, planet, or star, in the sense that they are fully participating members of the cosmos. They interact gravitationally with everything else in the universe.

Response: The isolation of black holes is defined in reference to internal events that may be of the emerging pre-dimensional type, similar to Feynman’s electrons that attempt to be in many places at the same time. These are described as subgrava events until such time that the emerging quanta acquire the mass and dimensions of space-time according to standard rules.

Issue: Are some (every?) Black Holes creating new universes? If so, are they popping out is some other space (not here)? Is their time so distorted compared to our viewpoint that they are actually expanding inside their event horizon in "our space" but so slowly we can't tell? Is the inside of their event horizon just a totally different space and they will do everything they will EVER do, without it ever looking any different from here? Are we ourselves simply living on the inside of a Black Hole?

Response: From the grava perspective, these ideas are superfluous to the three-dimensional harmonics (3DMAH) model described above. Black holes may contain pre-dimensional raw energy, not multi-dimensional shapes. It may be interesting to attempt to imagine the possibilities of one universe somehow captured inside another, but from the grava perspective these ideas are nonproductive.

Conclusion: Grava theory provides a new perspective on many of the questions being investigated by scientists today. Grava cannot provide the types of answers that only scientific research, measurements and experiments can provide. Yesterday it was reported by the press that traces of the Higgs boson may have been observed at CERN. Of course, if this is confirmed and accepted by the scientific community, the grava perspective on this issue will have been effectively refuted. If the results are unconfirmed, the grava perspective may help to provide a greater depth of discussion on the existence of the Higgs boson, and other related questions. Perhaps a greater level of confidence on the identification of particle traces will result from the final construction and use of the LHC in Geneva.

Thanks, again, for the attention you’ve given to this dialogue. 

Ray

More Discussion