Speculation Unlimited–A Fantastical History of the Universe Part I: The Creation of Matter

I love speculation. It is one of the most enjoyable thought pursuits I engage in, if not the most enjoyable. Unfortunately, it is hard to share your speculations without seeming like a total nutcase. Yet, here I go.

Stage One:

The Creation of Matter

It seems to me that the nature of matter and other such manifestations is better explained by describing them as waves that act like particles, rather than the reverse. I am not sure that the mathematics are any different, though. After all, what is the difference mathematically between a particle that acts like a wave and a wave that acts like a particle?

I am sure a lot of people could actually answer that question, but it sounds convincing, doesn’t it?

In my imagined view of the universe, the fabric of space is a friction-less fluid of extraordinarily small particles, each one existing as something of a point in four-dimensional space. Light and matter are simply waves in that fluid. Particles with mass are made up of circular waves.  In such waves, the pattern of motion in the fabric of space would curve around and catch itself, resembling a dog catching its tail and spinning around and around. Such circular waves would actually resemble the vibrating strings of string theory.

If this were all true, then the difference between the quantum world and the classical world of physics would just be the result of the different speeds and other characteristics of the waves, like whether or not they were straight or circular, or whether their motion in other dimensions differed from the things around them.

Macroscopic things, like ourselves, would actually follow the same exact rules as quantum particles. The differences in classical physics and quantum physics would be caused by the fact that we and other macroscopic objects do not move so quickly, our motion is not circular, and our motion in the fourth dimension is probably identical to that of all macroscopic objects around us.

All forces except gravity would be interactions between the waves. For example, the particular spin of positively-charged waves would churn the fabric of space around them and this churn would mesh with the churn of negatively-charged waves, like gears turning in opposite directions.

This theory would require at least four dimensions, since quantum entanglement could only happen if the waves of the entangled particles were physically connected in a fourth dimension.  Entangled particles would then be nothing more than separate peaks of a bundled wave and the perceived randomness of the location of electrons that is now expressed in terms of probability would be the result of interactions with other particles in the fourth dimension.

The universe we observe would be like the surface of a great, four-dimensional sphere.  We would not observe anything that went on below the surface.

Gravity would be nothing more than a difference in the density of spacetime. Hot, lower-density pockets would draw in the spacetime around them like wind rushing from a high-pressure part of the atmosphere to a lower one. Stars would be something like four-dimensional storms in the low-pressure spacetime, powered by the heat created by the matter that has collected there. As the spacetime rushed toward the low density area, it might travel through the storm and emerge at another point through wormholes.  Matter, however, would be too large to go through the wormholes and would gather there, like debris collecting on an enormous, cosmic drain.

Spacetime could descend from the surface plane of our universe to the interior, and then rise up at another point on the surface.  The whole structure of the universe, with its strands of gaseous matter, stars and planets, could be a result of such movements. Upwellings of spacetime could push galaxies away from the voids and into the filaments, with the filaments resembling the Pacific Ring of Fire, where sea crust is pushed under continental crust. Matter would get caught at the equivalent of continental margins, where spacetime descends at the filaments and rises in the voids.  The movement of spacetime would push galaxies and matter towards the filaments, just as is observed.

In this imagined view of the universe, all properties of matter and light would reflect properties of the waves. The fundamental difference between light and matter would be that light had motion in fewer dimensions. Light might only have three dimensions, where we might have four. This would also affect all our observations of the universe, since we are interpreting the universe through photons. The interactions of photons with matter might also cause the matter to collapse and essentially lose a dimension.

Since light would be like matter, but lacking some of its properties, dark matter and dark energy could similarly be like ordinary matter and simply lack different features.

The speed of light would be an illusion. We would think it had a speed the way we think the sun revolves around the earth, but we would be the ones who were in motion, moving as a wave across the flat photon beam (flat in that dimension, at least).  As we passed back and forth through the light, we would believe it was the light that was moving. The light would appear to have both speed and polarity, but the polarity would also be created by our motion, as we crossed back and forth across the flat beam from alternating angles.

This would be why the speed of light figures into equations that show the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc2, where c is the speed of light). Energy and mass would be properties of waves, and so would the apparent speed of light. They would probably reflect the motion of the wave in different dimensions (up and down versus side to side, for example). However, slow, macroscopic objects would probably all move together in the same way compared to the flat planes of light.

Reducing the motion of the wave in one dimension (up-down, side-to-side, etc.) would require increasing it in a different dimension, meaning that reducing mass would increase energy. Momentum would still be a major reason matter acts the way it does, and that conservation would take on even greater significance.

This is because, in my fantastical ideations, matter and light would owe their origin not to a Big Bang, but to a Big Bump, when another universe slammed against or slid past ours and gave it a massive shake, vibrating the particles of spacetime and creating a nearly infinite number of waves, which interacted and affected each other until they formed the particles and photons we are familiar with. The creation of matter in our universe would be a great transfer of momentum from the other universe to our own.

This would also account for the paucity of anti-matter in the universe, because the original disturbance was not omnidirectional. Matter would not have started from a central point and burst out in all directions. Instead, its observed expansion from a central point would require some other explanation.

The first possibility would be that the expansions of the universe from a central point reflected the decrease in the density of spacetime caused by the heat of the matter. The inflation of the universe would be caused by that heat.

The other possible explanation for the apparent expansion of the universe from a single point would be that, like matter itself, this movement was also the result of previous contact between our universe and a colder one, possibly the very universe from which we gained our momentum.

The direction of chemical equations and the history of our universe currently depend on the fact that our universe favors entropy, or loss of organization. This changes in relatively small areas, when heat is removed from a particular system. The loss of heat makes it possible for organization to increase in small pockets of the universe, like stars.

If the universe as a whole had lost enough heat for a long enough time, then entropy would have been disfavored. This would have reversed the direction of chemical equations and interactions, increased rather than decreased organization, and could have drawn all the matter in the universe towards a single point until, in an instant, the transfer of heat fell below a critical point and entropy was suddenly favored, chemical reactions instantaneously switched to their current direction and matter began its current outward trajectory without warning or transition.

And that is my imagined version of the creation of light and matter.


9 thoughts on “Speculation Unlimited–A Fantastical History of the Universe Part I: The Creation of Matter

  1. Yea dude. A vibrating particle is in the 2nd dimension. It is a verse(not universe) by it’s self, or even a visable copy of many replicas of the 2nd dimension it’s self! Your theory only might work with no time at all. That’s fine, because the 4rth dimension is 2 steps off, not 1 like it is with our verse. The 5th dimension is the 4rth physical dimension. It sounds far though!
    Unfortunately I cannot hope to imagine the 5th dimension because of time. If only I were born in a higher dimension!!!


    • As far as time goes, I think we may misunderstand it. It might not be a dimension at all. I favor the idea that it is a ratio like velocity. Specifically, I think time is measured in s/m, the inverse of velocity, which is measured in m/s. I use the word spacetime in the context of my imaginings because that is the term people are familiar with and it is equivalent to what I am talking about: a four-dimensional frictionless fluid of infinitesimal particles.

      It was thinking about time that got me started on all this, but the nature of matter is so much easier to think about. I never really finished my thoughts on time.

      Under my imagined view of the universe, time (or perhaps the speed of time) is a property of our wave motion through space. That is why time would slow down if you were to approach the speed of light. What you would be experiencing would be a change in your wave as you travel through space. It would be “stretched out” so that each cycle was much longer. (It would hard to differentiate between seconds and the cycles of our motion through space because both would describe our motion in the fourth dimension).

      I came to the idea that time is s/m by playing with Einstein’s equations. If you take away the variables and use only the labels (joules, grams, seconds, meters, etc.), and move things around and solve for time (t=??), then time seems to be measured in seconds per meter.

      So I am not sure that time does exist, or at least that we understand it properly.

      Part of the problem is that the universe we experience is not the actual universe, but a creation of our minds that is based on the data it receives. It may not be a perfect representation of the universe we are in. The similarity in our perception could be because we share the same brain architecture and therefore interpret that data in the same way. It is possible that there are features of the world around us that we don’t notice because our brains are not designed to notice them.


      • first and foremost, I’m not trying to deter you or whatever. this is really high level thinking. I have gathered thoughts from Einstein and every one of the best physicists of the last century or so. the smartest guy i’ll NEVER know is machio kaku. his hyperspace book is the best book I’ve ever read. took me over 2 weeks of reading / researching to get threw the book. it’s amazing, he’s amazing. I recommend it to anyone who ever hopes to be involved in physics. (trick answer because we’re all alive and deal with physics every day of our lives. haha)
        first off I have no idea what you’re talking about in referring to “s/m, inverse of velocity” i’d love to read the source of you’re knowledge, if readable.

        (or perhaps the speed of time) that’s interesting because I have my own theory on time. I think (oh shiit I just thought of something different) time dilation threw gravitational lensing! just like black holes are famous for gravitational lensing AND time dilation (as seen on tv, in the movie Interstellar (ps I hated it because it had no actual science)), the same exact thing can be DIRECTLY applied to higher dimensions!!! (my view on higher dimensions is that they must be bigger)(also implying that smaller dimensions like light, are it’s own verse, in a much grander thing, which is our 3d verse. (multi-verse theory))
        what I was starting off with, my thought I’ve been rolling around in my head for almost a year now, is that anything in smaller dimensions MUST have LOWER energies supplying LESS energy than our verse (which is bigger by default since 2nd dimensional vers’s are smaller PHYSICALLY than 3d vers’s. (obviously I can’t confirm any of this in any way.)
        i’m implying an entire verse within the 2nd dimension can be seen as elementary base particles.


      • oh and also, when you said
        “As far as time goes, … It might not be a dimension at all. … ratio like velocity.”
        you’re actually talking about the 4rth dimension!
        idk why physicists refer to the 4rth dimension being reserved ONLY for time, but that’s just how it is.
        I’ve seen videos (on youtube where everything is) about string theory, the way they talk about time, is applied. they leave it really open for all speculation hahaha

        about velocity, i DON’T think time has a part in it directly.
        the higgs particle makes a higgs field, that somehow makes mass (learned this from wikipedia)
        the higgs sub-atomic particle should be effected by time theoretically, and that’s cool because that’s just one step away from the reality of what I can prove! hahaha


    • Additionally, I think photons could be three-dimensional, or one dimension short of matter (My idea does allow for more than four dimensions, it simply does not allow there to be only three). That would be why they do not have mass and why they do not age (experience time), since both time and mass would result from movement in the fourth dimension. This would create issues for our observations of the universe, since we rely almost exclusively on photons to understand it and photons would be incapable of transmitting all information about the things we observe, given that they would lack a dimension.


      • Yea, it’s weird because photons have no mass, yet when light hits something, it’s velocity creates impact. how can something have velocity but no mass? why is light an exception?


    • Sorry, this has got me going and I can’t stop.

      If the difference between matter and photons were that matter moves in the fourth dimension and photons do not (meaning matter is four-dimensional and light is three-dimensional) then there could also be particles that do move in the fourth dimension, but not in the dimension that creates the quality of energy. Such three-dimensional particles would have mass, but no energy (in contrast to light, which has energy but no mass). I am not sure if they could even interact with photons. They would be dark matter. Dark energy, if it actually exists and the increased inflation of the universe doesn’t have some other explanation, could also be a wave that lacks movement in one or more dimensions.


  2. I mean it is possible that the way we experience time, specifically, only partially represents what is going on. The model our brains construct may be an incomplete picture of reality.


    • it is definitely incomplete, but only in a miniscule way. our eyes only focus on a very small portion of what our eyes are open to. we can read and wright easily. I’ve been looking at many different types of eyes recently and I saw a vid on youtube comparing food animals to carnivores.
      dogs, humans, round eyes.
      cats of all kinds have vertical pupils to see distance extremely well.
      deer, oxe, cow, have eyes on the side of their heads. they are prey and are good at seeing across a wide open plain of grass.
      one of the things machines can do, is see everything. we WILL use machines to further extend our abilities. the future will have some awesomeness, amid the pain and suffering we see today. pain and death are bad, and bad things bring different thoughts, that change how we think.
      people that are weird may be smarter than normal people. – good start of a news article. lol


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s