Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site prometheus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: White Holes?
Message-ID: <168@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 08:24:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: promethe.168
Posted: Tue Aug 20 08:24:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 05:52:30 EDT
References: <3656@decwrl.UUCP> <166@prometheus.UUCP> <490@talcott.UUCP> <779@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD
Lines: 55

Doug Gwyn writes: 
> that physics can clarify whether the concept
> of "before the universe existed" has any meaning.  In some cosmologies,
> time (by any reasonable definition) runs infinitely backward and forward
> so there can be no "before the universe existed".

I agree! 
Without matter time runs at an "infinite rate" and no information is altered.
So reality is empty.  However, with the injection of existence, which then
takes on material forms in our three space, time is clamped "slowed greatly".
So it does make sense to look at that moment when 3space became "non empty".
Further assume the material state represents the "debris" of a decay of a 
two space "hypo-matter".  Then time had meaning, even "before" our (three 
dimensional) portion of the universe became non-empty, because time had 
already existed for hypomatter.

> A lot of the popularizations of "the first few seconds after the big
> bang" cavalierly use everyday notions of time to discuss what most
> certainly cannot be correctly described with such notions.

Maybe not in a precisely measurable physics sense, but in terms of 
time being sequential framing of "information arrays" it still makes sense
to contemplate it.  That means that we may be able to reason to 
the maximum peak densities and minimum framing rates and that could
give us some understanding of what the state of hypo-matter is.  

> I don't know why so many people think the universe needs an external
> cause.  Just what good would that do?

Energy can't be created nor destroyed so it must have transformed from a
non-three dimentsional manifold.  Two space is the nearest adjacent 
manifold that satisfies the need for a hyper compressed and ultra high 
energy density state sufficient to power a "big-bang" 3d injection.
It then transforms to the much fluffier (almost cotton candy-like state, 
by comparison) material state. This scenario conserves energy for the 
multi-manifold universe for one thing.  Of course, the next step is to 
deal with the existence state of one dimensional space.  If that state 
is infinitely dense then we are sort of 1/4 th of the way between 
absolute void and God,  between an infinitely persistent time frame 
and an infinitely high framing rate.  What good did it do to find out 
that the cosmos didn't have the earth as its center?  For one it was
humbling. More intelligent creatures then we?  I have little doubt.

> Perhaps the observation that the universe operates according to definite
> rules contributes to this.  However, it is possible to make considerable
> progress in understanding (a) how the rules are interrelated and (b) how
> at least some of the rules could not be otherwise.  It seems perfectly
> plausible to me that the fundamental laws are inherent in the nature of
> existence and do not need to be ascribed to capricious whims of an
> external agency.

Yes, half of particle duality is that they function as "logic operators".
Let's face it we write software that becomes the filter to transform
information, why can't the physical universe be the software read-out
of some two space net wizards (accomplished programmers - angels?)