There is an assumption in some current theories of the nature of the universe that ‘space’ and ‘matter’ are separate physical entities, whose interaction takes place virtually at a metaphysical level. As the saying - the theoretical equivalent of a law - goes, ‘matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move‘. But this apparent ‘physical law’ only describes an effect between bodies of matter, not in an entirely different arena in which ‘space’ appears to act on itself, and ‘matter’ on huge scales is merely a helpless participant.
When ‘explaining’ cosmological redshift, cosmologists are fond of pointing out that distant galaxies are not speeding ‘through’ space - it is space itself that is expanding, carrying galaxies with it. Distant galaxies are transported at speeds exceeding the speed of light - by 'space'. This assumption appears to be unquestioned, regarded as a truth that needs no explanation by 'physical law'.
Simply by pushing on itself, 'space' is capable of carrying huge loads of matter far away from where they once were. Yet 'space' is given no physical qualities to carry out this work. Its 'power’ is the power of geometry.
However, there is a condition on this power of space. It expands only where it is ‘empty’. Where ‘gravity’ operates - that geometric ‘force’ capable of telling matter how to move - space does not expand. But what is the distinction between intergalactic space and galactic space?
Recent observations appear to show that expanding space is expanding more quickly than it once did. This ‘acceleration’ seems to require a repulsive ‘force’. At this point, geometric spatial expansion takes on a much more active role in the evolution of the universe. Yet this ‘revelation’ ignores the fact that spatial expansion, the expansion of a spatial volume, already requires an acceleration of three powers of radial distance simply to expand at a constant rate. Adding a constant volume of space per time unit will not do it. An constantly increasing volume must be added. This already indicates a kind of ‘super force’ at work.
If spatial expansion is now to be regarded as a ‘force’, then it should always have been regarded as a ‘force’ rather than as a ‘physical geometric entity‘. And what is expanding? It is a spatial field. But ‘space’ is the overwhelming existent state of the universe. In other words, this ‘repulsive force’ of expanding space exists in the context of massive bodies such as stars, which are themselves ‘space’, and in the context of ‘particles’, which are themselves at their root spatial motions, as well as in ‘empty’ space. If the ‘repulsive force’ of space is puny, overwhelmed by gravity which is itself overwhelmed by nuclear and magnetic forces, it is nevertheless a primary force. The idea that ‘space’ ends with ‘mass’ may be fallacious. The idea that these two entities, ‘space’ and ‘mass’, are fundamentally different, or that ‘mass’ exists independently of ‘space’, may also be fallacious. It may be more true to say that ‘mass’ is a manifestation of the spatial field, an energetic field which then becomes the fundamental field of the universe. At that point the notion of independent yet related entities no longer applies; ‘mass’ and ‘space’ are simply forms of a single energy field. That this field is described only in geometric terms then requires either that mass be also described in geometric terms.
The essence of a force is the acceleration it produces. A volume of space which is expanded by the addition of a constant volume will expand at an ever decreasing rate. Such a force is unlikely to be responsible for universal evolution. A volume of space which is expanded at an ever-increasing rate, such as is the apparent acceleration ‘observed’ by the Chandra telescope, seems similarly unlikely.
The field which could produce such an acceleration would be unlikely to create the harmonic universe we see.
The Planckian description of time and space dimensions utilizes a constant speed, the speed of light, to arrive at ‘natural units’. It seems only ‘natural’ that a similar description of an expanding spatial volume would utilize a similar constant rate of expansion. And from this constant expansion rate, an evolutionary scenario emerges which can encompass the creation of mass within an energetic field. That is the purpose of this scenario.
This is a scenario for a universal system whose fundamental form is that of an expanding energy field by whose expansion all descendant systems are created. The essential feature of this scenario is that there is no differentiation between ‘space’ and ‘matter’. In this scenario ‘matter’ is a rotational form of ‘space’ (or ‘space‘ is a non-rotational form of ‘matter‘), so both ‘space’ and ’matter’ are ways of describing what is ultimately energy. ‘Matter’ does not simply curve spacetime; matter is curved spacetime - rotating energy - and this rotation sets it apart from ‘non-material‘ spatial energy flows. Rather than energy being the property, or quantity of the property, of changing the state of a system, energy at its root is the ability to create a system by expanding, and this ability underlies all evolving physical systems.
Space and time ‘dimensions’ are ways of measuring the flows of energy.
In this scenario ‘gravity’ can be described as the curvature of space or as an attractive ‘force’. Space can be described as an energetic field. The ‘beauty’ of this scenario is that out of a single path - outward - the universe creates an endlessly increasing number of possible and actual paths, some good and some not so good.
It eliminates the need for a highly unlikely inflation scenario and eventual heat death necessary if there is a finite amount of matter in the universe (and if ‘space‘ and ‘matter‘ are treated as separate physical entities), since the expansion of ‘space’ naturally creates ‘matter’ in a constant ratio.
It may produce a mathematical description which reconciles the conflict between classical and quantum theories without the need for a ‘graviton’ or a Higgs field.
The scenario assumes that the field expands at a constant rate (say c). This natural limit creates pressure in the form of curvature within the field, since all regions within the field cannot expand at c. On average, the field expands only at half its potential, or to put it another way, the field has the capacity to create twice the volume it actually creates.
This leads to an interesting (and admittedly elementary) result. Using nameless spatial and time units, say the field expands to a radius of one spatial unit in one time unit, creating a volume of 4.1905 cubic spatial units, and has the capacity to produce a volume of 8.38095 units. The radius of the larger volume is approximately 1.2595. Imposed on the smaller radius, this could be said to represent a ‘curvature ratio’ of 1.2595 to 1. As the field expands this ratio remains constant. If we take ‘spatial curvature’ as ‘gravitational curvature’, this implies that approximately 21 percent of the volume of the field is subject to gravitational curvature, while 79 percent is not, although I don’t think it is that cut and dried. If gravitational curvature represents mass energy, then it could be said that a maximum of 21 percent of the universe would be in the form of ‘mass energy’ and the rest in the form of ‘vacuum energy‘, regardless of the age of the universe - although how much of the ‘mass energy’ is actually in the form of ‘massive bodies’ and how much is in the form of spacetime curvature between them, I don’t know. The further question is how ‘mass’ is arrived at.
On the scale of one, taking the basic formula by which gravitational force is measured (inverse to the square of the distance from a ‘center‘) and adopting it as a formula for gravitational curvature, it seems reasonable that of the curvature produced by the additional radius of .2595 found above, by far the greatest part will take place within a radius .1 (or .01, or .001, or . . .) of a ‘center of curvature’, i.e. a ‘center of mass’ of a single ‘particle‘ of mass.
It seems a single rotational period is the simplest to model, although such a rotation (as I have modeled it on three axes) does not produce a 360 degree rotation. And how the curvature will be determined between bodies I do not know.
Here the question is whether currently available mathematical ’tools’ can be used to translate a rotating space, rotating on three axes, into a formula for ’mass’. It seems that concepts such as Planck length and Planck time, the gravitational constant, and angular momentum should allow for some kind of determination. The gravitational constant may be problematic, but if the spinning region does turn out to be a region of ’mass’, it seems a gravitational (or inertial) value should be attributable to it. The spinning region would at least have angular momentum. Not knowing the math involved, I wonder whether it is possible to arrive at a translation of rotation into mass which can be incorporated into consistent theories.
There are eight possible combinations of simultaneous three-axial rotation, and interestingly, two distinct kinds of motion arise on a hypothetical spherical surface from these combinations. (I am not suggesting that a sphere will arise, but it seems a spherical rotation on three axes is necessary to model rotation responding to force from all directions.) I am not in a position to model (any further than I already have) these two distinct kinds of motion, but it would be interesting if three-axial spin could be modeled using computer simulation. Then further combinations could also be modeled.
I believe that combinations of spin are possible which can absorb more energy than the field can produce, at which time bodies will exchange energy between them, or radiate energy out to the field as photons.
This radiation will take the form of a kind of ‘breathing’. (And on a large scale, rather than stars ‘collapsing’ under gravitational pressure, they are finding more efficient spin mechanisms.)
If the circumference of the spinning region is set to 1, indicating both a circumference equal to the radius of the original volume, and also that a point on the surface of a sphere corresponding to the extent of the spinning region returns to its original position in 1 time unit, then its radius is ~ .0159, and its volume ~ .0168 cubic units. Interestingly, the ratio between the original surface area of the expanding sphere and the surface area of the spinning region is ~ 39.25 to 1, which is very close to the ratio of gravitational curvature or force between their radii, ~ 39.5 to 1.
This indicates to me that this ‘particle’ has gravitational mass.
The motion of various points on the surface of the spinning region follows various curves, which indicates that there is a torque applied to the spinning region, and a constant acceleration in the form of constant change of direction or curvature.
If the energy of this ‘particle’ can be derived from the formula E = hf for a massless particle, then its E = ~ 4.136 x 10^-15 x ~5.391 x 10^44 = ~2.23 x 10^29 eV.s
(if the frequency is taken as the number of cycles per second). If one electron volt is equivalent to ~1.783 x 10^-36 kg, then the mass of this ‘particle’ would be ~ 3.97 x 10^-7 kg, compared with a Planck mass of ~ 2.176 x 10^-8 kg, the mass of an electron of ~ 9.109 x 10^-31 kg, and the mass of a proton of ~ 1.6726 x 10^-27 kg.