Topic: History of Time
How is it going in England? I have been reading an advanced uncorrected
copy of Poincare's Prize by George G. Szpiro which a friend in NYC posted
to me. The book started me thinking about the shape of space(the
universe). Most people probably think of the universe as never ending or
as a sphere. But what if the universe is torus (donut) shaped or some
other shape like a three dimensional mobius strip. What are you thoughts?
Hi Mead! Combining the reality of Quantum Physics with the statement in Genesis that God made us in his own image would produce a conclusion that the largest and smallest is ultimately spherical. Man is a construct of spherical atoms that is in appearance non-spherical, but with sufficient close up magnitude the atoms will become apparent. However, shapes within spheres can be formed by forces and constructs into the appearance of non spherical. Thus there could be donut shaped systems or (my half idea) hourglass shaped systems (working on the basis of a whirlpool funnel as observed when water drains from a sink) visually observable and traceable within the universe at the correct distances and magnitude (like viewing a painting), but a close up magnitude of all these systems ultimately reveals a collection of spheres.
It is possible to have a 'theory of everything' set of laws within a sphere and a stronger resistance to external pressures (e.g kicking a football).
Of course, there is always the question as to what lies outside the universe. People claim there could be other universes, while others will claim there is nothing. But no one has ever come close to giving me a clue on how there can be an end to space. I believe that the 'time is temperature' theory sufficiently demonstrates how time can have a beginning and an end. It answers (to my mind) what was an impossible riddle beforehand. But if space is not infinite, how does it achieve finite? My only idea so far is that if your eyes could see in one fixed direction up at the stars instantaneously as far as can be uniquely seen, then you will end up seeing the back of your head.
Is this nonsensical?
If a plane were able to fly at a constant 10,000 feet it could be claimed it was heading in a straight line. If it were able to travel instantaneously through all unique territory it would be possible to see its own tail up ahead.
Thus, the mechanics and shape of space may well be donut or hourglass, but working within the principles of a sphere that has no material substance. The best analogy I can offer is that of a web page resulting from html or java code. The pixels creating the web page could be analogised as spheres and the webpage itself could be any shape, but the html code or java script are not visibly apparent.
If this idea is true, then it describes what can only be interpreted as a creator, or God, using spheres (pixels) to shape the universe. "Let there be light" suddenly corresponds with 'time is temperature' and converts to "Let there be time". But the creator may be God and all powerful and how we might conceive him, or it could be that we are advanced artificial intelligence in a virtual universe programmed onto the equivalent of a video game on a super hi-tech alien computer. But in the latter case we come back to the issue of where space ends.