(Condensed from the book “Nuestro Universo Tetradimensional” I.S.B.N. 84-4046610 – Depósito Legal MA-1.490-1.990)
Versión en español
By Ignacio Lamothe.
Actually, talking about theories of begining and struture of the Universe, the big-Bang theory is the most in fashion one, which principles, for well known, I’ll not explain. However, as first step, I’ll do comment its principles in a critical mode and try to show its incoherences, not deeply because the shortness of this kind of work, but in its main points.
So that, I’ll deal with which is the main point of the problem for me; and it is that a Universe coming from a singularity or “cosmic ball” (tridimensional structure) will allways be a tridimensional structure, wich evolution, time (proposed as fourth dimention), is only expression of its size, less or more developed, but always maintaining its tri- dimentional structure.
And the question is what we know about universe, we’ll comment afterwards, show us that its structure isn’t tridimentional but, at least, four-spacial dimentional, though our mind don’t accept imagine how could so weird structure be.
We”ll also talk about that and about my opinion that is not correct to break the linkages between physical concepts in its mathematical treatment because it can be reason for mistakes in some cases. As we told before, time in relation to “Big-bang Universe” is (time always means change, evolution, mutation…)only expression of its size, evolution that goes in accordance with physical laws; among them is that which stablish that the highest speed in universe is that of electromagnetic radiation. Matter, on the contrary, will never reach such speed; so we can firmly say that radiation produced in the begining of big-bang universe should be in the border of the tridimentional big-bang universe; and that means that radiation will never be detected in regions of universe where matter exists, for its expansion speed is always lees than the electromagnetic radiation. So, we can’t say that microwawe radiation discovered by Penzias and ilson is the “echo” or residue of the first big-bang. We can’t either talk about a radiation of equal lenght all over the universe because, being it in expanssion, that radiation must have different wave length for the different galaxies which relative speeds are not similar.
A NEW THEORY:
So, what does Penzias and Wilson radiation mean? No doubt it denotes that in this aspect the Universe has a great isotrophy, which is very much in accordance with the isotrophy observed in material distribution in universe. And, ¿what’s the meaning of this universe’s great isotrophy from our galaxy?
The most simple explanation would be that if our galaxy is near to the “center” of the Universe, all our surroundings have the isotrophy we observe; but it seems to me that we are falling in the old and iterative mistake of considering us the creation centre.
On the contrary, the most reasonable (for its probability) explanation would be that considering our Universe in three dimensions, it has neither borders nor limits because it clouses itself in the fourth dimension. This new fourth dimention is spatial one, not temporal that, as we’ve seen is only expression of Universe developement.
This new spacial dimension gives a solution to the problem of the space limits. Now it isn’t necessary to consider the infiniteness of the space. It also gives a solution to the problem of where goes that enormous amount of electromagnetical energy which would get lost in a tridimentional universe without limits.
In the universe concept that we defend, all this amount of energy, in electromagnetic wave form, doesn’t get lost; on the contrary, it comes back to the Universe from which it was produced. That means that the amount of energy grow bigger, increasing what we could name “universe electromagnetic density” till very high levels if there wasn’t mechanism oposite. Such mechanism, in my opinion, exists and it is no other that transformation into matter of electromagnetic radiation; transformation that occur in the space between galaxies (or perhaps in other places) in determined conditions (the shortness of this work doesn’t alloow to develop this theoretical process as it should be) This “material generation” in space between galaxies is, for its effects, the same that steady state theory proclaims, but the difference is what we proclaim is product of electromagnetic energy that is all over the Universe, when it reaches the necessary “electromagnetic density” and other conditions in the intergalactic space. So, the conclusion is that material distribution in the Universe doesn’t appreciablely change along time (similar to what Steady State Theory establishes) but sectorial anisotropies can be possible; we can consider them as desviations with characteristics of statistic phenomenon; theese are the standard desviations of great numbers. The problem is our mind try to avoid every concept in relation with a four dimentional space, but we must remember that our mind may have wrong concepts inside and them to make us go lost; so, we must not avoid intuition (our internal vision), as it has been proposed, but, instead, we must pick up from our mind subjetives and incompletes concepts, modifyng them and adding them new facts, new linkages; facts vouches and contrasted by scientifical experimentation. This is for me the most important concept, more than propose an universe’s new model; to let new concepts grow up in our minds coming from old ones but adding them new facts that drastically modify and complete such old concepts.
It is a way that, implying physics and cosmology, goes over them to enter in epistemology and philosophy. But, returning to our main theme, this universe concept involve some problems; for example; if we say that “universe density” does not change nor material-energy amount, Universe should always have the same volume and this opposites the very well known expansion that red shift reveals.
However we can consider that if this universe expansion is in accordance to Hubble law, from all distances and through time, the result is that from great enough distances, galaxies recesion would nearly reach “C”, and all external zone of this distance would have no section because of Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. We can say the same for every place in Universe; so, every place in the Universe would have the same radius, given by Hubble constant value because the expansion is “compansated” by the space contraction .
But, though this argument seems unquestionable, a vision of the Universe expanding, in same places nearly to “C”, still remains in our “internal vision” . ¿What contradiction between what “we see in our imagination” and what physical facts (not refused till now) prove consists on?
But we must realise that all our ideas, concepts, internal visions etc… in our mind weren’t created by a logical process, deducing ones from others but, on the contrary, such concepts have been created by our mind from very primitive sensorial stimulus and all this altogether and so our other experiences. This last factor, similarity between our perceptions and others perceptions give us the feeling that what we percept and imagine is “the reality”. But this reality is only creation of human mind. Our mode of “internal seeing” is wrong and we must adjust our internal sight to proved facts in order to see right images.
And, ¿what explanation can we give to Universe expansion that red shift prove? In the same way to before paragraphs, we can propose that such phenomenon, added to Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction is the way through which our senses understand the space curvation into the “spatial fourth dimension” By both phenomenon the space expands and contracts itself, so its size is always the same, as bidimentional surface of a sphere doesn’t change though it’s curved every way into the third spatial dimension. As complementary explanation, it’s proposed for universe expansion that a GRAVITATORY REPULSION EXISTS, that completes the interaction scheme of this kind of forces, because is very well known that in electromagnetical forces we can find atractives and repulsives interactions, and so we can find two types of polarity, and tha’s why we can think that also exist two types of gravitatory interactions, though we only know the atractive one, and we can also think that the repulsive one is responsable of Universe expansion.
Whith important simplifications because of the shortness of this kind of work, the theory written here is, I think, more in accord to the reality than a Universe model result of alternative theories. But I’d like to say at last that the word “reality” is said against my desire because…¿what can we find of “reality” in perceptions, ideas and internal visions of human beings?
(I should like my english was better, but I can’t. More clear explanations must be made in my language, spanish)
© Ignacio Lamothe.