# Thread: Is there another way to explain how the universe works?

1. Newbie
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
8

## Is there another way to explain how the universe works?

I had an idea and I would like to know if it has any chance to be useful or if it's absolutely wrong. But I don't have the proper knowledge about this matter at all.

As far as I know matter may only exists in space-time.
We assume that matter has mass. And we asume that gravity makes all things with mass are brought toward one another.

Using the privilege of my ignorance, I dared to ask myself:
Is this the only way to explain matter behaviour?

What happens if mass is not a property or a feature of matter? Can't it be a property of space-time?
I may say that mass is the stick used by space-time to push matter.
And can't gravity be a force applied by space-time to any matter in its field?

It doesn't look like a problem.
Planets will keep be orbiting stars, the stars orbiting galaxies, etc. Nothing has changed.

I started to follow this line of thoughts, and to play with that idea.

I ended with a spherical four-dimensional space-time, with a sort of a four-dimensional crystal structure, made of mass units, or mass particles.
And a matter made universe (ours) moving across this space-time along the fourth physical axis.
This fourth physical axis is also the time axis.

I need to know if those two assumptions are breaking any fundamental law of physics.

Because if this is a possible scenario, and you think how things should be working there, you may will be easily concluding that:

- The universe is expanding but keeping the same density.

- The dark energy is the mass of the biggest part of the space-time's field, without matter present nearby. And because of the absence of matter nearby it doesn't produce any gravitational effect.

- The dark matter is the mass of the second biggest part of the space-time's field, who has nearby matter. The part of the field around matter who is bended by matter. And because this part of the field is in the depression caused by the matter it has overall gravitational effect in that region.

- This mass units or particles of the four-dimensional space-time, may be three-dimensional particles, but even so, if those particles are not located in the interseccion of our three-dimensional matter universe with the four-dimensional space-time, we may measure and detect the result of their presence, but to detect the particles itself with a three-dimensional toolkit could be a very hard task to do.

- This hypothesis suggests that when the three-dimensional universe, moving along the fourth dimensional axis of the space-time, "crashes" against the space-time's sphere wall, a new big bang will happen.

- Space didn't exist at the Big Bang. Because when the matter universe is nearly a tangent of the four-dimensional space-time's sphere, the space-time's volume will be so radically reduced that it will not be anything between matter and matter, and will not be anything beyond matter' border.

- Time didn't exist at the big bang. Because when matter universe crashes with the space-time's sphere wall, the movement along the fourth dimensional axis will be stopped abruptly.
No movement, no time.

- The reaction of the space-time's field to the crash of the matter universe against its wall may produce an "anti-gravity" effect powerful enough to trigger a big bang.

- It's reasonable to spect, before and after the big bang happened, a sort of inflation effect.

I find some weird things, I'm not able to determine if we are moving forward in time or moving backwards in time. Because having a Big Bang in both ends of the road, makes this two alternatives equally valid.

I was surprised to find so many coincidences with the facts that science describes.

Perhaps some of my deductions are wrong. But before that I need to know if those two assumptions about mass and gravity may run.

I know that scientists don't like a lot, when someone who can't fully understand Einstein' famous formula and even less Higgs' field and all that stuff, brings a radical new idea.
But please, try to left that aside, and at least as a mind exercise, check if this hypothesis may fit with the physics and maths description.

I have a blog in which you may be able to follow my line of thoughts and much more detailed explanation of this idea.
I'm not including the address of the blog because I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm not trying to get more visits to the blog.
Basically, I'm the only reader of the blog.
But if someone from this site authorise me I will post it, or I can copy the needed information instead and post it here.
Sorry for the length of the question, and thanks.

2. Welcome Enrique. Thank you for being careful. Let's see how far we can get without an external link to a blog. We do allow questions to be asked about what is actually pretty much an Against The Mainstream topic, as long as we judge it to be a genuine request for an answer. If, however, you decide to actually defend this idea or argue against mainstream science answers you get here, the thread will be moved to the ATM forum with its extra rules and requirements.

3. Originally Posted by Enrique
We assume that matter has mass. And we asume that gravity makes all things with mass are brought toward one another.
These are not assumptions, they are observations.

What happens if mass is not a property or a feature of matter? Can't it be a property of space-time?
I don't think there is much difference between these views. I mean, it is not one or the other. Mass is a (measurable) property of matter, but it is also the curvature of spacetime.

And can't gravity be a force applied by space-time to any matter in its field?
Gravity is not a force applied by space time, it is just how we perceive the curvature of spacetime. Gravity is not "produced" by space-time curvature; it is spacetime curvature.

I ended with a spherical four-dimensional space-time, with a sort of a four-dimensional crystal structure, made of mass units, or mass particles.
And a matter made universe (ours) moving across this space-time along the fourth physical axis.
This fourth physical axis is also the time axis.
This kind of intuitive mental image is destined to be rather inaccurate. We have a detailed (mathematical) description of spacetime. In some ways it is similar to your mental model (e.g. time is a fourth dimension) but it is different in important ways too: spacetime is not spherical; it is not made up of particles (people have done very accurate experiments and spacetime appears to be continuous not quantised/particulate).

- The universe is expanding but keeping the same density.
We have a lot of evidence that the density and temperature of the universe have decreased over time; this is one of th email lines of evidence for the expansion of the universe.

- The dark energy is the mass of the biggest part of the space-time's field, without matter present nearby. And because of the absence of matter nearby it doesn't produce any gravitational effect.
Dark energy may be the inherent energy of empty space and energy and mass are equivalent so, in a sense, this is kind of correct. But doesn't really tell us anything more than we know.

- The dark matter is the mass of the second biggest part of the space-time's field, who has nearby matter. The part of the field around matter who is bended by matter. And because this part of the field is in the depression caused by the matter it has overall gravitational effect in that region.
I don't really know what you mean by "the second biggest part of the space-time's field". But saying that dark matter is extra mass around matter is a description of the "symptom" not the cause. And we know that dark matter can be separated from normal matter and it isn't clear how your idea could fit with that.

- Space didn't exist at the Big Bang.
...
- Time didn't exist at the big bang.
Well, we don't really know anything about "at" the Big Bang (or even if there was nay such "event") but it is certainly true that if you trace things back (naively) you get to a singularity where space and time don't exist. But that is not considered to be realistic, and we probably need a quantum theory of gravity to say more.

I was surprised to find so many coincidences with the facts that science describes.
Well, some of your ideas fit loosely with some bits of the science, bit a lot of it seems to be very different.

I assume the reason there is some match is because you based all this one the science you had read. So those bits will match. And then you extrapolated using your imagination, and those bits generally don't fit (some might, just by chance).

Perhaps some of my deductions are wrong. But before that I need to know if those two assumptions about mass and gravity may run.
I'm afraid that without a mathematical model, no one can tell you if your ideas are right or not.

4. Newbie
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
8
I have to apologise, I don't know the proper scientific vocabulary, I'm afraid you have to read between lines to understand what I'm trying to say.
And I think you're doing it perfectly well. Thanks.

I do understand that any idea or a theory needs a mathematical model who explains it.
And I do not intend to doubt the current mathematical model.
Even if I don't understand it, I do trust all the working and the accomplishments that science have done.
My question is if my idea may fit into the current mathematical model.

You told me that:
"Mass is a (measurable) property of matter, but it is also the curvature of spacetime".
"Gravity is*spacetime curvature."
I prefer your way to write it. But does it invalidate my idea?

You are absolutely right when you say that some of my ideas match because are based on the science I heard. I tried not to bend my thoughts, to get the results I wanted. But you probably know better.

I will show you how I started to try to explain the dark energy and the dark matter.
You already teach me that spacetime is continuous so please, don't take my "mass units" literally, it's just a mental tool.
If space-time is continuous instead of quantised/particulate, it doesn't seems to be relevant to the concept of the idea.

----------

001 in English

I always try to think out of the box, but some leagues are too far away from me.
Against the odds I believe I have something useful.
I'll really be grateful if someone could be so kind to check this for me.

The problem is that my compressing algorithm is not so sophisticated.
I can't express myself with equations not even with the proper scientific language.

And to make things worse the tool I'm using is the common sense.
Yes, you are right. I completely agree with you. I also can't imagine a less suitable tool to explain how the universe works.
Just allow me the benefit of the doubt.

I know that scientists have some problems on how to fit gravity in the system.

When I read gravity's definition (Wikipedia) it's weird.
It looks more like an edict from the Vatican than a scientific definition or explanation.

In an universe who has one molecule of hydrogen only, does gravity exist?

To think about gravity we must have 2 masses (or energy). In the equations too.

To think about electromagnetism in pairs makes sense, because it's the interaction of charged particles. And there are two possible charges.

But there aren't two kinds or states of mass.
I just didn't feel confortable with that definition.

Was that, the only way to explain why things who has mass are brought toward one another?

If Arquimedes had born in Europa's (Jupiter's moon) ocean, instead of in planet earth, it would have been a little harder for him to realize why some objects had a tendency to levitate.
I think it's more difficult for a mind who was forged, while diving in an ocean with ice as ceiling, to detect the water displacement.

He may though that those objects had the property to move as far as possible from the centre of the moon.

We ourselves are divers of the space-time. Is it possible that we had misunderstood which properties belong to matter and which properties belong to the matter' container?

Now comes the part in which the risk of me playing the fool increases exponentially.

The only way to exists, to what we call an hydrogen molecule, is to exist, in space-time.

If that molecule is the only existing thing in the universe, it's not going to be pulled toward anything because there isn't any anything else in that universe.

But I believe that that's not reason enough to allow me to say: Well, this imaginary universe will be ruled by 3 forces only.

So gravity has to be there and should be working on that molecule.
But how?
That hydrogen molecule, must be able to bend the space-time.

So, I started to think: Is it the centre of the earth who is pulling me, or could be the space-time the one who is pushing me to it?

And standing, over my huge ignorance about this matter, I allowed myself to go further on that though.

But why space-time push me towards the centre of the earth?
Well, nature do things, in the most economic and efficient, way possible. If space-time will push me, it will do it towards down hill.
As earth has already bended the space-time. Towards down hill, is where the centre of the earth is.

And assuming that my blind driving, through the forest of the physics' laws trees, wasn't stopped by a very solid tree yet, I keep going.

(I don't understand why energy is mentioned in gravity's definition but if I'm not wrong mass may be expressed in energy and energy may be expressed in mass. I chose to express it in mass.)

So by now, I have this:
Gravity is a force, applied by space-time, to any massive thing in its field.

But what happens if mass is not a property, a feature, of matter.
What if it's a property of space-time?
What happens if the only massive thing in the universe is the space-time?
Let's say that mass, is the stick used by space-time to push matter.
And only then, the mass can be detected by us.

To change the ownership of the mass may be in conflict with Higgs boson, but me, been extremely optimistic, may think, perhaps that boson may now be re-tagged as a space-time particle. I have no clue if it's possible.

Beyond that posible conflict nothing seems to be different. I'm still falling to the centre of the earth, that lonely hydrogen molecule is still falling, but into itself. Nothing has changed.

It is the same picture, the same data.
But I have a remarkable advantage watching the picture through this glasses.

Now that mass belongs to the space-time, the need to be pulled together applies only when matter (and light etc) interact with space-time.
I may say, when mass is "transferred" from space-time to matter.

If that's true, I have no need to create an invisible "something" called dark energy (but I chosen to express it in mass), to explain the missing mass of the universe needed to explain its behaviour.

That missing mass is located exactly where it should be located. It is located in the other invisible "something" that we already knew was there: space-time.

I do understand that all those beautiful drawings and animations of the space-time I saw, are not literal. A net, holding a star with a planet orbiting on the edge of the depression created by the star. I know that those are just a useful metaphor to make the laws of physics and the human understanding approach to each other. In the same way that my explanation pretend to be.

So, if I say:
Gravity is a force applied by space-time to all the matter in its field and its magnitude is proportional to the amount of the mass "transferred" in the interaction. (I still don't like* to say "transferred", but to write a more accurate definition, I need a better understanding of how exactly, that interaction happens.)

But that's a definition of gravity that my common sense, does not feel uncomfortable with.

I wanted to test if this hypothesis had any chance before disturbing you with this lines, but I failed.

I wanted to find out the amount of space-time in universe, that remains flat.
By flat I mean that is not bended by matter.
The part of the space-time, who is far away enough from any matter to be "disturbed".

I wanted to calculate the "sphere of influence" (the distance where the gravity of a celestial body is completely dissipated, I'm not sure if SOI is the proper term), of a celestial body with the mass of all the matter in the universe, but with a size/mass ratio of the average celestial body.

I thought that even if this size/mass ratio is impossible, it will make it more representative of how the matter is distributed in the universe.

I wanted to locate this massive sphere in the centre of another sphere with the size of the volume of the universe.

The idea was to calculate the amount of mass of space-time remaining at the outside of the SOI.

As I don't know if matter displace the space-time or if they share the same space, so I will get two possible results.
Obviously as my result is an amount of volume, I will have two posible densities for one result and three possible densities for the other.
Then I should have to deal with all these variables, and start assigning them "reasonable" densities in order to find out if it's possible get a number near 68.3% of the mass of the universe.

If I get something near the 68.3% perhaps that's where dark energy have been hiding.

But I wasn't able to find the formulas to do the job and I'm not skilled enough to manipulate them to serve my purpose.
And all this assuming that space-time has a similar behaviour interacting with matter and dark matter.

I wrote and rewrote this letter a lot of times. Many times I realised that some of my conclusions were absolutely wrong.

For example, for a time I pretende to build my celestial body with the ordinary mass only.
Hoping that the mass of the part of space-time within the SOI, was the mass of the dark matter.

Assuming that the "disturbed" part of space-time may have a matter-like behaviour.
But that's cheating!

----------

When I wrote that wasn't thinking about a four-dimensional space-time.
And wasn't thinking about the expansion or the density of the universe.
I knew what the universe was expanding but I thought it was because of the inertia of the mass.
It wasn't until I watched the BBC documentary "The Mystery of Dark Energy", I heard that the universe was expanding but keeping the same density (minute 21 in the documentary).
It was to solve this problem I added a fourth dimension to the space-time.

But as I don't want you to hate me, I will tell you about it later. All together it's too long.

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Enrique
I have to apologise, I don't know the proper scientific vocabulary, I'm afraid you have to read between lines to understand what I'm trying to say.
...
All together it's too long.
A long post to try to answer, Enrique.

The English Wikipedia article on gravity is quite clear - gravity has been scientifically defined and explained for some centuries now.

In an universe who has one molecule of hydrogen only we have no reason to believe that gravity does not exist because gravity is a property of mass and energy and a hydrogen molecule has mass and energy. There will be no gravitational forces outside the molecule because that needs anther body. But the 2 atoms in the molecule will have very tiny gravitational forces between them.

It is an observation that this universe has only 1 kind of mass and so it is treated as 1 kind. There are thoughts that negative mass exists.

An imaginary universe with 1 hydrogen molecule will have gravity but there will be no forces on that molecule from other bodies because they do not exist.

The hydrogen molecule will bend space time.

The mass of the Earth curves space-time which makes the force of gravity and it is that force that pushes you toward the center of the Earth. Space-time is not a physical thing with physical properties such as mass or charge. Simply put, space-time is the thing that gives objects their positions.

Dark matter is not dark energy and is not "missing mass" because we detect it by its effects.

Your diagram is incorrect. Space-time has no mass in mainstream physics. Gravitational influence does not stop as the diagram suggests, it goes on forever. There are piratical limits.

The measurement of the curvature of the universe show that the curvature is very close to or actually flat.

The density of the universe is decreasing as it expands - it is the density of dark energy that is thought to be constant.

Space-time has 4 dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time).

6. Newbie
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
8
Thanks for being so patient with me.
The fact that gravitational influence goes on forever, it just makes my explanation about dark energy and dark matter a nonsense.

When you say that "the density of the universe is decreasing as it expands", means that the same amount of stuff in a bigger room result in a lower density.

But when you say "it is the density of dark energy that is thought to be constant".
I'm confuse, does it mean that as the universe expands more dark energy is "created" to keep the same density?

I started to think about this matter one month and a half ago, and I got a little obsess with it.
I understand that I was wrong about how gravity works due to my lack of knowledge. And by now I'm not so optimistic about my ideas.
But I still think that the adding of a fourth physical dimension may explain some things.

Some things will be obviously wrong because are linked to the first part but perhaps you can rescue something.
The full text it's two times the length of my last question.

I don't want to abuse of your patience. But I will be so relieved if someone who understands read it.
May I post it for you to check it?
I promise not to disturb again on this matter. I may have other questions or crazy ideas, but not about this :-)

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Enrique
But when you say "it is the density of dark energy that is thought to be constant".
I'm confuse, does it mean that as the universe expands more dark energy is "created" to keep the same density?
The simplest and most accepted cause for dark energy is the cosmological constant in GR which is the energy density of space. It is constant as the name suggests.

8. Originally Posted by Enrique
...I'm confuse, does it mean that as the universe expands more dark energy is "created" to keep the same density?...
I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that as the universe expands, the dark energy within it does not get diluted.

9. Originally Posted by Enrique
... does it mean that as the universe expands more dark energy is "created" to keep the same density?
At the risk of stepping into a field I'm not an expert at:

I'd say that whether 'dark energy is created' or not is an implication of what we know.

Dark energy is a placeholder that we assign to whatever is causing the universe to expand. We don't know what form it takes, but it's going to be some form of energy, since, in a sense, it is performing "work".

If this dark energy were constant then, as the universe expended, it would be diluted - and therefore the expansion should slow.
But the expansion isn't slowing. So we sort of have to assume the dark energy is not being diluted.
In fact, the expansion is accelerating. We might conclude that the amount of dark energy is increasing over time.

10. Newbie
Join Date
Jul 2019
Posts
8
I know that my approach to this matter is intuitive and naive, but the way the things are explained in this site makes sense to me. Even if I don't understand the maths involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
That the universe is expanding, and that the energy density of space-time is constant, both are scientific facts. Both are observations that I can't and don't want to deny at all.

When I clicked on "cosmological constant", Wikipedia' explanation was shown and I got confused again.

If the space-time time is continuous, why is the word "clusters" used to talk about dark energy?

Do scientists have a way to explain how it could be possible "that as the universe expands, the dark energy within it does not get diluted"?
Because in a three-dimensional universe I don't get it.

I don't know anything about quantum field theories, but if a room grows bigger, its contents should be diluted.
Or at least there should be a way to explain how that new energy is created.

The only way I can explain that fact to myself, is by thinking of time as a fourth physical dimension. In that case it's absolutely reasonable that something may grow bigger keeping the same density.

That's why I begged you to let me post the rest of my idea. Ok, it's long.
And now I think it has more mistakes than the ones you all have shown me, the ones related to my ignorance about gravity.
But anyway I still believe that some parts may be useful.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,434
Originally Posted by Enrique
If the space-time time is continuous, why is the word "clusters" used to talk about dark energy?
"and it clusters much more weakly than matter, or perhaps not at all.[citation needed]" is talking about dark energy in general, not the cosmological constant. That is what the editor of that part of the article thinks dark energy might do, presumably if it is not connected to spacetime.

Originally Posted by Enrique
Do scientists have a way to explain how it could be possible "that as the universe expands, the dark energy within it does not get diluted"?
They do. GR has an energy density which is the cosmological constant. A universe with a non-zero cosmological constant will always have that energy density. A positive cosmological constant causes negative pressure and an accelerating expansion of the universe. We have observed that accelerating expansion of the universe and labeled it dark energy. Thus if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant then dark energy has a constant energy density.

The main quantum explanation for dark energy is quintessence where
Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant explanation of dark energy in that it is dynamic; that is, it changes over time, unlike the cosmological constant which, by definition, does not change. Quintessence can be either attractive or repulsive depending on the ratio of its kinetic and potential energy. Those working with this postulate believe that quintessence became repulsive about ten billion years ago, about 3.5 billion years after the Big Bang.[6]

12. Originally Posted by Enrique
Correct me if I'm wrong.
That the universe is expanding, and that the energy density of space-time is constant, both are scientific facts. Both are observations that I can't and don't want to deny at all.
The energy density of spaces not constant; it is decreasing (ie. cooling) as the universe expands. The energy density of dark energy is (thought to be) constant.

Do scientists have a way to explain how it could be possible "that as the universe expands, the dark energy within it does not get diluted"?
Because in a three-dimensional universe I don't get it.

I don't know anything about quantum field theories, but if a room grows bigger, its contents should be diluted.
Or at least there should be a way to explain how that new energy is created.
Note that quantum theory already tells us that there is a non-zero energy in a vacuum, ie that is not caused by the presence of any matter. And this energy is constant for a given volume, even if space expands. (But this energy cannot directly be dark energy because it is too large. So there is a big theoretical problem/unknown there.)