Some observations

What follows is wildly speculative and quite probably utter bullshit. Be warned!!!

The underlying reason for airing such absurd speculation is to try and show how a process of:

  1. reading
  2. wild conjecture
  3. establishing anchor points
  4. readjustment to retain only the "fittest" conceptual "survivors"
  5. iteration

... can go on and on as a productive, iterative process getting closer and closer to potentially important realisations. The conceptions emerge in wild swings (of "good" and "bad") that eventually begin to dampen out towards something usefully productive. It represents an interest provoked learning adventure. Perhaps it will work (expose more of the "truth"), perhaps not. I will have to wait and see. However, these observations – open thoughts – might just possibly prove to have a smidgen of provocative value somewhere. And, on the principle that, unless they are read, they will never have a chance of influencing anyone – here goes. These are "open", "unfinished" "thinks" that will mutate quickly as I discover the incorrect assumptions and omissions (the beginnings of new iteration cycles – frequently accompanied by much embarrassment). They represent a process of wild conjecture, interest provocation and then filtering out the worst dross. There will be many wildly wrong assumptions here but the general trend does suggest there are some avenues to explore. (The whole of the following section needs rewriting and clarifying and I will try and do that as things seem clearer to me.)

To start, I will make the following set of assumptions. The term "big bang" conjures up the impression that the universe came into being at a particular point in a(n eternal?) continuum of forward-time (firmly restricted to the 13.7 bn Yr ago to AD 2012 time-direction) and it exploded into some pre-existing spatial entity. This gives legitimacy to the multiverse idea where, somewhere over there and out of sight, countless other universes can exist. But space and time may represent an emergence that is strictly "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) from a zero-dimensional-zero-sized-zero-point-source that is outside of any process that could be described as time or space. The only thing that seems to be pre-existently "something" is the uncertainty about the exact nature of "nothing" – so that jitteriness emerges, differentially persists and accretes. Out of this uncertainty a full universe emerges who's net energy (probability distribution around the mean) is zero. For every positive probability a balancing negative probability exists that leaves its energy balance (concentrated improbability distribution) at precisely zero. Everything is "centred" around a virtual singularity of zero size, zero mass, zero time and zero momentum (the virtual implies that zero is also virtual – rather like Quad electrostatic loudspeakers that act as virtual point sources – see page 10 of the brochure).

First: time and distance combine together to dictate how much energy is needed to move from one inertial frame to another (see New Scientist's 1 "One-Minute Physics" videos and select "How far away is tomorrow?"). So to move an object from [point A now] to [point B in the future] the following observations can be made. (To give image to this idea, imagine the object is a keratin fragment that has just fallen from the skin of your arm). A slow leisurely move from A to B will require low force and low acceleration. A faster move from A to B needs greater force and acceleration. To get from A to B almost as fast as a photon would require enormous force and acceleration. To get from A to B instantly is impossible in classical physics and if special relativity "rules" are strictly adhered to. So, the "effort distance" of getting from A to B, slowly, is much lesser than the "effort distance" of getting from A to B, instantly. The difficulty in getting from A to B increases with the shortening in the time interval allowed to achieve the move. Effectively, from here to there instantly is massively (pun intended) more difficult than getting there in an hour. (Even the keratin fragment would become infinitely massive if it was made to move there instantly.) So what about getting from A to B in minus one pico-second? Does that have any real meaning? It ought to mean travelling to 1 picosecond ago (that is 1 picosecond in the past). So what might the graph of all those negative seconds look like? (They have happened, so they should have some representation.) Two things can be said about this. First, moving a highly ordered macrostructure (like, for example, your brain) to a point 1 pico-second ago is going to be far, far, far more improbable than the same brain assembling itself – from its component particles – by sheer chance (reminiscent of the argument that says that a Jumbo-jet cannot "spontaneously fall together" from a collection of its component parts – it is vanishingly improbable). Could the graph on the negative-passage-of-time side look very similar to that on our positive-passage-of-time side? This should be, effectively, a reflection. To get from A to B instantly would require a virtually infinite amount of acceleration (then deceleration – note it is a cycle !!). It would not matter if the distance from A to B is just one millimetre. To get there less-than-instantly (say in minus one pico-second and in other words one pico-second ago – and this must be a real entity because it has just happened) would require "more" than an infinite amount of energy under the rules of classical physics – suggesting that it is "classically-impossible-physics" for even a keratin scale to move backwards into the past. But, Planckian time differences, Planckian distances and the resultant increasing probability of quantum "effects" might change this barrier (eg, quantum jumps, quantum tunnelling, quantum uncertainty). But at this acceleration-deceleration cycle our moving object would also become apparently minute, apparently supermassive and its "clocks" would, apparently, run exceedingly slowly (and even backwards, of course: this was the conjecture). So, the effort-distance travelled is traded from being something dominantly measured in metres to something dominated by mass – becoming supermassive and having a slow (or backward once "beyond" the SoL) running "clock". And yet it could still remain a combination of only one fempto-second and one fempto-metre away. So anything moving forward leisurely in time can quite easily look like increasingly big metric distances and anything moving backwards in time can look like smaller and smaller accumulations and concentrations of mass with a decreasingly slow running (or reversing) "clock". But, fundamentally, one fempto-second ago is still, potentially, just millimetres away even though it might be separated by an immense improbability barrier. As we go to shorter and shorter distances, a move from A to B instantly still remains classically "impossible". Once we get to Planckian time and distances, the quantum world can take over. We end up with an ultra-thin membrane separating now from the future and from from the past and quantum leakage might occur – perhaps in a capacitative way across this "membrane" (so, real particles might capacitatively exchange their real for virtual characteristics across the membrane between past and future). And, ultimately, by analogy with refractance, any approach to the membrane which is not in a normal (right angular) approach could be reflected backwards in mirror image form. Perhaps this could be interpreted as the R to 1/R inversion of physical laws that the string theorists have highlighted (where the combination of high energy string vibrations in a large dimension can have the same energy as low energy vibrations in a small dimension. Later, I suggest re-thinking this to R/[statistical mean] and [statistical mean]/R). Here, the theorists see a transition from a vibrating string that is shorter than its dimensional constraints into a wrapped string that is longer than the dimensional constraints. This emphasises points about circular "motion". It can be confined to the circle itself; if the circle centre progresses along some extended dimensional element, it traces out what we then call a sine wave (this might be equated to a vibration); or, the circular/oscillatory form can be wrapped, spring like, around the surface/margin of a compact dimension. (See the diagrams below – they emphasise how each form can morph into the others). Now, this could equate to our "outside the electron shell world" that we experience as a 3-D environment (the R universe) within which the "reflected" 1/R world of sub nuclear matter establishes a stable standing wave juxtaposition of the 2-D encasement by electron shells. So, the "now" membrane between "future" and "past" would lie somewhere between the electron shell and somewhere within the atomic nucleus. Since the R world seems to be dominated by a 3-D universe, the physics of R and 1/R forms appear to be indistinguishable, we might expect an "inhabitant" of the 1/R world to perceive a mirrored 3-D universe; and that, in turn, leads to a conjecture that the nine dimensions conjured up in string theory might be the product of 3 sets of 3 dimensional matrices (equalling an apparent 9-D matrix). This could be strung out from the "opposing sides" of a past-present-future "brane". This "brane" would lie physically (distance) very close to all observers' "nows". But, as I interpret it, this implies that the past might just be a reflection of the future in a fashion corresponding to an R to 1/R juxtaposition. The analogy might be better restated as the "now"-point and this – though more or less continuous with adjacent "nows" – is "projected" back to the virtual singularity of both individual and collective "nows" (as in the sphere diagram below – the third down). This Planck sized (non-zero) singularity corresponds to the virtual centre of mass whether it be a particle, atom, planet, sun, galaxy or universe (and any intermediate "collection"). Multidimensional compactification at this point means that quantum jumps are a tiny fraction (in 9-D – or more) of 1-D quantum jumps. It is likely that these jumps, from a highly improbable to a more probable distribution, are what we equate to time. At the singularity there are so many 9-D jumps to the 1-D jump that it takes "forever" to achieve it (c. 13.7 bnYrs). This is reflected in the Universe "expansion" diagram below. "Now" will turn out to be a poor analogy – a fulcral point of maximum compactability is a better metaphor.

The important point to absorb about this "winding/vibrating" point is that there exists an R sized dimension with a low frequency vibration that is as energetic (statistically improbable) as a 1/R dimension with a high frequency vibration and could be described as a "reflection".

Now we can get a glimpse of what galaxy, solar and planetary orbitals might be about. To remain close to the "now" point, in opposition to the jittery world of photons, that are so light that they want to flee off at the slightest "nudge" and at (what we perceive as) the speed of light into the future (think of the metaphor of Brownian motions), our planetary systems seem to want to stay closely attached to what we see as the past (but it is this "now" point). The centre of the mass that constitutes a human body is (for the vast majority) less than a metre away from the immediate past. We already know it is possible to move into the future (arrive at your 100 year old son's funeral for example). To do so we would have to undergo prolonged acceleration and this is the so called "twin paradox" for spaceship travellers. But an enormous amount of energy (injection of improbability) is needed to achieve this. But, the barrier to the past is (classically) unachievable.

The view from within a nucleus of one of our constituent atoms (at the Planckian centre of its mass) may well seem as though they are much closer (than we perceive) to adjacent nuclei, to the centre of the earth, to the centre of the sun, to the centre of our galaxy and its black hole event horizon, and even to its "virtual singularity". It is only their centrifugal tendency that stops them from completing their collapse to a singularity. This is just a more metaphorical way of stating what Einstein introduced us to with warped spacetime. So, mass (multi-D) wants to disperse towards the past and condense towards the future. Light (1-D) wants to disperse towards (flee into) the future and to condense towards the past (imagine a big bang video seen in reverse as it accretes together and implodes to nothing). But the two might be reflected "back and forth" (in a static rather than oscillatory fashion) between the two virtual sides of a "virtual singularity" which are, in actuality, both extremely close to "now". And that "now" is relative to each and every A to B movement (remember that wherever there is a temperature, atoms do not stay at rest). To us, though, matter "appears" to be unequivocally condensing, and light unequivocally expanding into the universe's deepest corners.

If we accept the earlier idea that the quantal objects that make up our universe are scattered around the mean and that the event horizon of a black hole is relatively close to the event that we call the big bang (effectively, a relatively short "effort distance" from it), then we can surmise that the negative time (the backward in time bit – the minus one picocecond all the way back to the beginning which is the "big bang") also has a similar asymptote. Now this double asymptote is looking pretty familiar and rather similar to a statistical distribution about the the most improbable. If we think of the situation that exists in deep intergalactic space, then the probability of noticing a forward or backward in time event is, there, more likely than it is in our parish where we occupy an incredibly improbable state of negentropy (I will call this side of going forward in time "positive-negentropy" and going backward in time "negative-negentropy"). The higher up the asymptote we get, the more improbable (harder to get to by sheer chance) our condition is. However, this position that we humans occupy is quite likely to be one of very high order rather than just being highly (spontaneously) improbable. And the one at the bottom of the scale, one of very low order (bland sameness) that is also highly (spontaneously) probable (a very high entropy state). This puts carbon based life forms and the emergence of a technologically advanced society very high up the "functionally-ordered" scale. (Note that high entropy and low order – and vice versa – are not obligate "bedfellows": I have already pointed out earlier that "a highly ordered" and "high entropy state", can co-exist.)

The two asymptotes in this graph should never actually (classically) meet. They will get to a Planckian physical distance apart and at these scales we should be able to see backward in time events occurring as quantum fluctuations or jumps (and we do see them !!!!). But the overwhelming mass action effect of "positive-negentropy" will ensure that we never get to see much evidence of these events at the macroscopic level. Exceptions to this general invisibility probably include the observed outcomes of slit lamp experiments. Note that we already know that light cannot go faster (from our persective) than the speed of light BUT it can, instantly reflect at the speed of light without "flinching" – this could be very relevant.

I guess that, if it exists, the "join" between the future and the past when encountered at the mean in deep intergalactic space is mostly occurring at a very "bland-sameness" level. So, a question: towards the extremes of improbability and order, is a technologically advanced society, together with all its technological trappings, more functionally-ordered than a neutron star? And is it more functionally-ordered than a "sea" of electromagnetic waves "charging around at the speed of light"? And what about the conundrum of "the big bang" – which was simultaneously very bland (near uniform) yet unbelievably improbable; viewed afresh from the above perspective, this might not look quite such a contradiction.

The implication of this double-asymptote diagram is that it is a shorter "effort distance" to move into the future, down into a black hole then back through "the mean" and then into the past so that we might arrive at a point 1 pico-second ago. For macroscopic structures, going straight across the double-asymptote-barrier could be a similar if not higher energy (improbability) barrier. (Note that we humans like to think of the possibility of time travel whilst maintaining our highly improbable configuration – i.e., a structurally-intact-thinking-barely-aged-human-being). And it is extremely unlikely that we could ever enter "negative negentropy" whilst retaining that formed state (we would be long dead, decayed and dispersed to a particle or even electro-magnetic wave mish-mash). In, fact, it looks like we would just be reliving our historical emergence from star dust, to amoebae, to fish, to quadrupeds and finally to humans and our own parents getting together to create us.

So what might represent this barrier – this 2-D membrane – between the future and the past? It is tempting to see this, at least on one side, as the combined 2-D spheres of the electron shells – particularly the inner electron shell. Each electron shell represents a higher and higher barrier to "penetration". The inner 2 electron shell (the hydrogen atom like shell) is the ultimate free electron barrier that separates the past from the future. That leads on to a thought that time might be the reciprocal (the 1/R equivalent) of what we regard as distance (the R equivalent) which we perceive as part of the extra-electron-shell world and it is the "distance" that we feel at home with (rather than "time" as the distance). Within that shell – inside the nucleus in particular, dimensions are closed down (or wound up) and time slows and there are hints that entropy can appear to be reversed with initial accretion in the future and dispersion in the past. So, across the entropic mean, positive neg-entropy is characterised by the R "universe", by "effort-distance" (space-time) that is predominantly "felt" as metres and it is dominated by negative charges on the outside of atoms; on the other side of the mean, the negative neg-entropy side, "effort-distance" (space-time) is dominantly appreciated (by us) as time, it is characterised by the 1/R universe, it is intra-nuclear (within the atomic nucleus and probably "beyond its virtual "centre of mass" singularity) and it is dominated by positive charges. But these positive charges are possible virtual loans from the other side of the "now" point which, if they had not crossed the "now" barrier, would be occupants of a positive charge on the outside universe.

Now the double-asymptote-barrier mentioned earlier conjures up the metaphor of the previously mentioned six sided dice. Seen from one side only, there is a never a zero dice throw (only -3 -2 -1 or +1 +2 +3 where opposite faces always but always add up to zero). Electromagnetic waves (or string structures), the metaphorical dice equivalent, should, therefore, always come as matched "pairs" of equal but opposite magnitude that really do sum up to absolute zilch. It is tempting to ask if that might be why we find it hard to find magnetic monopoles. Space itself might be the construct of multiple pulses of circular magnetic fluxes – multiple rings of "space" that "overlap and coalesce". Everything is cyclical (wave like) – including the ultimate and largest cycle that joins the "beginning" (big bang) to the "end" (black hole). I am tempted to think of an electron as a unit composed of an R plus 1/R pairing. This pairing is the backdrop on which the standing wave of electron matter is composed. The R element is a supermassive disk of "positive" electromagnetism dispersed through space (so we don't appreciate its "positivity" and the 1/R element is a miniscule disk of "negative" electromagnetism that has "leaked" to the other side. The electron negative disk can wrap around a tiny positive (nuclear charge) but this sphere size dictates its "string" wavelength which corresponds to the "reflection" in an anti-matter world of our "past" (see below) of the R radius of an antimatter magnetic field. This helps to make it clear why magnetic monopoles are hard to find – we would need to look for them at an R sized object. Note that all this suggests that the very fabric of METRIC space is created by the R representative of this (opposite disk face) pair. They cannot interact to slide back (as electromagnetic waves) to nihil/zilch UNLESS we can expose an electron to a positron (for example). Then the two 1/R components are positively and negatively charged and the two R components are similarly Positively and negatively charged. They can then "collapse" instantly back to the mean – but seem to do this – from our perspective – the "long way around".

In a quantum world, extra dimensions "deeper" than 1-D might be expected to never fall to zero but to some (virtual?) miniscule but finite Planck sized distance. So for entities largely confined to a 1-D "existence", distances may not be completely devoid of some trading off of their dimension for time. There could be a tiny trade off and this might contribute to the observed limit to the speed of light. Time is – in the limit and once unleashed from the multidimensional cages of atoms – returned pretty much to just a distance (and, of course, vice-versa!!). The energy that becomes tied up in matter may be the consequence of its "dive" and "condensation" into 2-D, 3-D, 4-D etc dimensionality. This just might help contribute to the observation that light always seems to move away from higher dimensional conformations at the "speed of light" (3-D for us – we cannot measure the SoL without a 3-D instrument of some sort). But this velocity is only achieved in the absence of intervening "matter" – ie, in a vacuum. It is already believed that matter is the product of standing waves and standing waves regularly form where two or more waves are travelling in opposing directions. Ultimately, if an electromagnetic wave is a loop filament (connected at it's "birth" between the upper face and lower face of our metaphorical dice), then we need to conceptualise what happens when positive and negative energy interact, unravel multidimensional stable standing waves and allow the collapse of an "existential loop filament" (an annihilation?). So, from a photon's view, its companion photons can be across the universe in an instant. From our view, we are left looking at the consequence of the collapse of the existential loop and the loosened filament is now "somehow" affected by a return "journey" in reverse time back to its origin where it rings (oscillates) on arrival in the past (what we would consider to be the origin and an instance of "cause and effect"). So could light always appears to arrive at the target at the speed of light because it represents the released end of the filament actually leaving the "target" in reversed time. There might be some value in developing and refining this metaphor. Maybe not, however. I will leave this to the reader.

This gives us a better feel for what might constitute forward in time entropy and backward in time entropy. Remember, time is probably just a distance but, unlike the time taken for a 1D light beam to get to the moon and back, distance that goes through many dimensions is characterised by an increasing trading off of simple distance (1D space) into (multi-D) spacetime – in which our (human) perception becomes largely focused on time. They are both just distances (or probably – and more exactly – effort-distances). So what we would consider to be forward in time is (effort) distance travelled in the direction "mapped out" from its origin in the multi-D "core" (denoted as 1/R in the diagram above) to the periphery of this expanding light (1-D radius) "sphere" (and denoted by R). So travelling "backward in time" is equivalent to moving progressively more deeply into multidimensionality (where gravity increasingly "dominates" our experience of it). Ultimately, returning to the "beginning" would occur at or within the event horizon encircling a (virtual?) singularity – a black hole. At this point the capacitor "dielectric" may break down and this would act rather like a water reservoir's overflow funnel.

It might be useful to think of a wave as a circular phenomenon; a pulsating flux of magnetism (an expanding then contracting ring of alternating N->S then S->N fluxes) that alternately expands then contracts into 2-D "space"; this then "pushes out" an alternating +ve then -ve charge that is in step but at right angles to the magnetic flux; then we need a "rail" ("strings" or "filaments" in space) so that the pulsating magnetic flux can work its way along the "rail", "away" from its creation-point (rather like those railway handcars, often seen in old western films, that are hand "pumped" along the rail). This "rail" should be at right angles to the other two (Maxwell). It might just represent the superimposition of our metaphorical handcar over a much larger electromagnetic fluctuation. Whatever, it is in this arena of electromagnetic oscillations that the condensation of persistent matter should begin to emerge out of the quantum foam that is a fundamental property of tiny distances.

The requirement for the theory of inflation is predicated by ourselves when we insist on a unidirectional straightjacket for time. If our baryonic universe is an emergent phenomenon, then there may be no need to dive closer to the "virtual" singularity than the event horizon. The forward and backward flows that create the standing waves of matter would "hinge" around the event horizon or to a virtual (but non zero) point – a virtual singularity. The passage of time at an event horizon is virtually at a standstill; so, if this was first formed early in the history of our universe (our straightjacket for time suggests 13-14 billion years ago), its time is very much closer to the "big bang" than we are. Could this mean that, at least, some Hawking radiation is released in the past, closer to the "big bang". In extremis, if the black hole started to accrete at the "moment" of the "big bang", then Hawking radiation could be part of that radiation. In this view, the present and future could all be "going down the plughole" back to the beginning. But all this apparent "movement" may simply be a parochial illusion as we have to claw our daily lives up the "falling steps" dominated by electron shell repulsion (just to stay still); this is our most immediate and dominating encounter with the "entropy driven" repatriation back towards nihil/nothing. Photons do not experience any passage of time (effectively an electromagnetic wave is able to transfer an energy packet – a statistically improbable occurrence – across vast distances of space). Rather than time being "slowed" to a virtual standstill (as at the event horizon) photons have traded virtually none of their 1-D distances into creating a time interval (one metre is 3.3 nanoseconds and 3.3 nanoseconds is one metre; it is impossible, in 1-D and in a vacuum, to be greater or less than this; excepting when we drop to Planck sized distances, time and distance are synonymous). It is only when we try to measure the time it takes to move from one piece of baryonic measuring apparatus (a set of standing waves) to the next (set of standing waves) that we impose an apparent velocity on the process. To interact, the photon's energy packet has had to dive down into a multidimensional realm where some distance is traded for "time".

Quantum jitteriness could represent a constant uncertainty of exactly where a wave "is" on a "string". This could become manifest, initially, as apparent 1-D "translocations" consequent on the occurrence of variously improbable quantum jumps.

(From our parish!!): at one extreme we have 1-D (occupying) light waves/photon complexes. These are so light that they form a perpetual "Brownian motion" like dance. The slightest disturbance will send them careering off at the SoL into the future.

At the other extreme we have concentrations of mass that, if projected back to a virtual singularity, occupy Planckian multi-dimensional volume and extremely small size. Unlike photons, that take virtually no effort to accelerate to light speed, such a singularity is "infinitely hard to set in motion.

These contrasting properties echo fundamental aspects of the quantum world. With light, we can know how fast it is going but can't tie it down to any place. With a massive singularity, we can know where it appears to be but we cannot attribute it any speed.

This following point could prove to be what is – essentially – a tautology. When we play around with electrical circuits, if we want to store electrical energy, we employ capacitors. Now, the closer that we can get each plate of the capacitor together without touching or allowing the electron-excess/electron-deficit to cross the gap, the more energy we can store in that capacitor. There comes a point, though, where the potential difference between the plates grows so much that the capacitor's dielectric barrier (air, dielectric material) breaks down and the energy just dissipates into a flash of photons and heat. Now, the double assymptote pictured above, between "the past – representing the positive charge" (one "plate"), "now" (the dielectric) and "the future – representing the negative charge" (the second "plate"), should act just like a highly efficient capacitor that is capable of storing vast amounts of energy (what we recognise colloquially as e=mc2). What constitutes "the past" and "the future" will not quite be what we naively expect from our parochial experience of time. It will be "coloured" by positive-negentropy and negative-negentropy and will be, ultimately, closely linked to effort-distance. So the whole concept of time may need to be reinterpreted as a function of distance and quantum uncertainty.

Now, we have a situation where highly improbably distributions of energy (itself a statistically highly improbable distribution) have "emerged". If the SoL limit is pretty much absolute then crossing the dielectric (now) becomes increasing hard the closer we try to move from A to B instantly (or even just into the past – an even higher spontaneously improbable barrier). So, the docking of fresh energy (photonic wave packets) into the "capacitor plate" is likely to be a very fussy recipient. Might it be that, like entering earth's orbit from deep space, the approach conditions need to be just right (and vice versa for leaving). The speed of light limit that we are accustomed to may be more a property of the "capacitor plate" (the 2-D spherical electron shell) than the filament that carries the photonic wave packet. We already know that the orbital frequency of electrons dictates the frequency of photons released from this shell. Some property of the conversion of the 2-D rotational speed into the 1-D photonic wave packet speed must mean that, whichever electron shell ejects the photon, it is converted to the same 1-D photonic energy packet speed. Could the SoL limit be dictated by electron shells rather than – as we traditionally see it – an intrinsic property of "light itself" (which we tend to regard as a single entity but it is a conglomerate of different factors, for example carrier filament, wave packet, frequency, propagation speed, wavefunction, oscillating charges and magnetic fields). Only finely tuned wave-packets may, then, be capable of contributing energy (higher improbabilities) into to the grand matter-capacitor. This needs thinking through but may be important. I am not aware of any method of measuring the SoL that does not involve interaction with an electron shell.

This leads into a consideration of the top and obverse sides of our metaphorical dice. I have already implied that the positive and negative sides of negentropy that are distributed around the mean must be in perfect, absolute balance. There should be no transient borrowing here (which CAN occur when we look at just the top sides of the dice or vice versa). A positive deviation around the mean MUST be perfectly balanced with a negative one if the principle of generation "ex nihilo" is to remain strictly balanced. So what features constitute the positive and negative deviants that arise "ex nihilo"? One option appears to be two waves that can, theoretically arise out of nothing provided they shifted through 180 degrees relative to each other. Such waves can also annihilate completely. Another possibility is that the string theorists' R and 1/R universes represent a perfect balance about R/R (this should equate to 1 unit – probably the Planck length – nothing can be smaller – so like our 6 sided dice, zero values never occur). That puts the fulcrum clearly at the Planck distance and this would fit nicely with our atomic capacitor being close-ish (by our macro-standards) to this point. Furthermore, we can now conjecture that the progression from R to 1/R goes something like this (1-D to 9-D representing one dimensional to 9 dimensional):

R R1-D R2-D R3-D R4-D R5-D R6-D R7-D R8-D R9-D R/R (Planck scale) 1/R9-D 1/R8-D 1/R7-D 1/R6-D 1/R5-D 1/R4-D 1/R3-D 1/R2-D 1/R1-D 1/R

Nuclear matter will accumulate somewhere towards the centre of this sequence (at least partially on the 1/R side) and the transition – through or towards the R9-D to 1/R9-D transition, will occur somewhere WITHIN the depths of the nucleus of an atom. And, if you were an inhabitant of the 1/R world, you would probably regard yourselves as the R version and us as the 1/R version. The cone that subtends back to the beginning (the "big bang origin" in the above diagram) would have the R dimension on the outside of this light sphere with this sequence running down towards the origin of the light sphere. Quite what happens once we are down to R9-D is not obvious from the current conjecture and needs consideration. I will guess that the R9-D to 1/R9-D transition requires the severest of improbabilities and equates to a black hole/ big bang "virtual singularity", whilst the matter that constitutes the environment of mother Earth does not dive so deep that the "storage capacitor" "breaks down" to allow the ultimate annihilation of the stored energy. (Note that to confine an electron within a nucleus would require a phenomenal 3.77 GeV; CERN can reach into the TeV range and still – apparently – be short of creating a black hole.)

Ultimately, in a grand explanation of what is happening, I suspect that we will have to get rid of the millstone idea that time is "real". By that, I mean that time is considered something where the past is gone and ceases to exist and the future is equally non-existent until it has has happened. In this scenario, the only real "events" are so transient that they are long gone within femtoseconds. Now, Einsteinian physics already suggests this is a parochial view because different observers observe different "nows" and these "nows" clearly remain inter-dependant. What the "giant capacitor" idea does is to give some feeling for how distance is spread out in a matter containing universe. In reality, everything probably exists "stat" – the past, now, the future, space and matter: they are all there and imprinted within the "mathematics". This is comparable to a DVD of a computer game – everything is "on the disc" and stays there even though the game can only be appreciated (by most punters) when played in "real-time" and to them it appears to be highly versatile in its output.

The emergence of matter and intelligent life must "grow" in incremental steps. Linnaeus' statement "Nature does not make jumps" could be paraphrased into "Nature does not make big jumps." Emergence occurs through sequential steps of gradually increasing interactive-complexity that are small enough to allow some sort of "ladder" (remember the previous observation that on either the top or the obverse sides of our metaphorical dice, highly unusual one-sided distributions can occur by sheer chance, whereas the sum of the front and obverse sides of the dice, when added together, always returns a value of absolutely "zilch"). Having a configuration that allows balanced positive and negative neg-entropy to reside closely side by side (the matter capacitor) without "touching" (annihilating) enables a series of progressive steps. Indeed we can see these steps occurring in the production of hydrogen, helium and lithium (big bang), then the ignition of nuclear fusion leading on to the creation of heavier elements (carbon, oxygen etc), then supernova explosions and the creation of even heavier elements (iron being very important to our existence), then the collapse to a neutron star (electrons and protons squeezed to nuclear size to form neutrons (but still "held apart") and – finally – the conditions where the capacitor gap (perhaps) breaks down and what ensues is a singularity that tracks back to the beginning. The outcome is, potentially, a circuit where the uncertainty principle generates endless virtual photons and "heavier" particles that may persist, occasionally, either side of the mean (in balanced forward and backward "time"), evolve into galaxies and eventually disappear down a black hole plug hole before being re-circulated back to the general quantum foam. What "persists", counter to this flow, is a morphostatic structure of galaxies stars and planets with occasional inhabitants that maintain their own form by various feedback processes. Don't forget that the flow is occurring both in (what we consider to be) forward and backward time depending on whether it is extra-electron-shell or intra-nuclear.

In this scenario a technological society might even be able to establish the conditions to ensure its own "creation" (either knowingly or unknowingly). This society has the potential to close out the time loop by initialising the configuration and conditions that would allow itself to emerge in the first place: but that is extremely, extremely, extremely conjectural.

So how could emergence from quantum foam occur? Current concepts are riveted to the belief that time is a real entity that is independent of anything else (that is, it is not an illusion brought about by the way other "forces" affect matter). These concepts are riveted to the assumption that this time goes forward (1912 to 2012 direction) everywhere. However, this apparent time direction is imposed on our senses (in a domineering way) by electrons and electron shell repulsion. This and the "release" of electromagnetic radiation that can then track off into the deep voids of space clearly point to an apparent single direction in which entropy increases. However, I have already alluded to the possibility that gravity affects atomic nuclei and baryons in a way that could be interpreted as a "backward in time" dispersal (back to nihil, zilch). If this is possible, then to fall down the +ve side of the diagram below has to be done in what we consider to be a 2012 to 1912 direction. But the past (big bang expansion) and the future (black hole collapse) may be much closer than we imagine – if not "the same phenomenon" viewed from two alternative perspectives. If this were the case, then we now "see" evidence suggesting cosmic inflation because we refuse to consider it as part of a counter-current flow of two differing entropies that affect all matter. To accept the scenario that all matter "exploded" in the instant of a big bang is majestically more of an improbable event that a jumbo jet falling together from its constituent parts (even more improbable than one punter winning all the worlds top national lottery prizes every week for a year). To get around this we have to imagine multiverses that test all the various possibilities until one bubble universe emerges that is just right (Goldilocks stuff). But, evolution and emergence are well proven permissive systems. Given the option of which one to prefer, I know where I would like to place my lottery bet. And experience suggests that patterns are reiterated throughout the universe. If biological evolution (the auto-catalysis that leads to emergent systems) can do it then the atoms and constituent waves, from which biological molecules are constructed, can almost certainly replicate this step.

Note that our current view of inflation tries to stuff the right hand (+ve) entropic stairs into a "1912 to 2012" time direction. So we could be interpreting +ve charge entropy as an apparent emergence from a Planck sized singularity up towards the event horizon.

AND YET MORE ABSURD CONJECTURE !! I have missed a most interesting metaphor. It is likely that these probability-steps do not, themselves, "move" with time. They are "rigidly" defined and fully outside of "time"; they just "are" or, more importantly, have the potential "to be". Think of the system as acting like an up and down elevator side by side, separated by the smallest of distances (at least as small as the distance from the electron-cloud to the nucleus). There may be a counter-current set up at "now" (between past and future) with quantal uncertainty having a dramatic influence between the yoctosecond (and less) division between the past and the future. This improbability barrier between the past and the future is too high to cross classically but quantal uncertainty of may allow a regular (quantum foam like) "breaching" of that barrier (and that fits nicely with the influence of virtual pairs in quantum mechanics). All we see, hear, feel and measure is, at least to a greater than infinitesimal degree, dominantly a property of the past (unless they are quantal uncertainties). It is this "jittering" uncertainty that drives the up/down escalator and the standing waves of matter. Now, might there be a flop transition (at now) from a "negative-charge-on-the-outside"/"positive-charge-on-the-inside" to a "positive-charge-on-the-outside"/"negative-charge-on-the-inside": a mirror image of past and future. String theory does seem to suggest the very-big could become suddenly (apparently) the very-small and vice versa. Note that these mirror images should be extremely close to "now". There is no need for the standing waves that form matter to continue right up to the apex of the probability curve before "falling back". Anywhere up (and down according to perspective) the escalator matter standing waves can settle. At the apex, the maelstrom of a "black-hole"/"big-bang" singularity ensures that structures are ripped apart to their constituent particles (strings?) with electrons falling to one "side" and positrons to the other (as Hawking radiation?). The zenith of the apex could well set the values of both Planck's constant and the "speed of light". The place where order can reach a maximum should be within the spiral arms of a galaxy. This explanation helps to appreciate better the constant "rocket-motor" of gravity. And time disappears as an independent, primary entity; it becomes a combination of charge "direction", quantal uncertainty and entropic gradients (the latter going in different directions for different "string-structures"). And, on the uncertainty principle, think of a matrix of +3 to -3 dice faces. The quantal uncertainties mean that, though and in general, the dice throw has been made and is fixed there is the potential to "flip" (eg, -2 to +2). This uncertainty can "test" multitudinous possibilities and select the ones that define matter and our baryonic universe. When we look at the "remnants" of the big bang we may simply be looking at the two sides of the apex (the analogy being the opposing faces of the dice so the apex is simultaneously of the past and of the future – depending on perspective).

E-M waves could form as 180 degree out of phase pairs that "depart" from the "now" membrane at the SoL. (This is analogous to the upward and downward pointing faces of dice.) They can wind up into extra dimensions to form "matter" and thus slow down their departure from "now" (very dramatically; when at a black hole event horizon, virtually no movement will occur at all and time will apparently stand still although their constituent E-M waves are still travelling, through multiple wound up dimensions, at the SoL – It is just that they have to go on the most circuitous route possible; effectively, the black hole is travelling at the SoL relative to the now stream of quantum foam.) An E-M wave looping from one side of the "now" membrane to the other will "believe" that it has made this journey instantly (it is not bound by time). We will think it has taken 13.7 bn years because we are measuring the slow down that we have introduced in the winding up process. The probability of avoiding all obstructions when looping from now-past to now-future is possibly very low so only a small population might be "instantly around the loop". The vast majority of E-M waves will find a 180 degree out of phase wave that is otherwise (vector, polarisation, amplitude and frequency) identical. And most of these "annihilations" (more akin to equilibrations in this instance) will happen in the quantum foam. (This is analogous to the random distribution of dice values that are spontaneously possible on the upward pointing faces of dice; with more and more dice, the average of all individual values get closer and closer to the mean.) In our "chiral" universe, negative electric charges are to the outside of atoms and positive to the inside. Could it be that, across the now membrane, the opposite it true and that we have a mirror image of ourselves in antimatter peeling away from "now". It is fairly clear, now, shy the speed of light is always constant – it is always travelling away from now. It is also clearer why we cannot travel faster than the speed of light – we would transfer to the future side of now (via the long loop rather than tunnelling across). We could probably tunnel across as matter pulverized into constituent strings through a black hole.

So, in deep intergalactic space, the "now" membrane is dominated by quantum foam. Remember, everything we see, feel, touch and measure is – to a least more than an infinitesimal value – in our past. In a black hole event horizon, the now membrane has an enormous flux of E-M waves.

This "now-membrane" concept needs much more thought. For instance to see how it joins up through adjacent points in space and in three, rather than one, dimensions. However, I think it is very promising metaphor.

Note that the "now-membrane" for we humans on earth does not warp by more than 0.05 secs (12,750/300,000 – the "light" speed across the diameter of the earth – neutrinos would go straight through in this interval).

Now we can go back to the probability about the earlier probability diagram, turn it on its side and draw it with a mirror image below it.

LEFT – a wormhole where the neck of the funnelling black hole opens into a tunnel to "another universe" or, as I suspect, "back to nothing/zilch" in our own universe. "Other" universes might be possible but there is no reason why they should be in any contiguity in any way with our own. I suspect that space (our space) is created "ex nihilo" and it is not an eternal-background-constant ready to be invaded by other universes. If we extend the trumpet ends around into a doughnut, we end up with a spatial structure as in the diagram above (Universe "expansion") where there are a minimum of two funnels "back" to the big-bang/black-hole interface. My current guess is that there are only two funnels (all black holes "jin up" before going through the ultimate – Planck sized – singularity) but there may be many indentations into the "surface" that makes up that funnel. Einsteinian diagrams of an elastic spacetime membrane already show our sun, earth and moon together "demonstrating" this. And these spacetime "trampoline" grids begin to resemble the magnetic field lines of an extremely large bar magnet. This (recently found) Youtube video adds some extra interest to the idea – the "Orange Universe". A second torus sequence "floats" more possibilities.

Now, everywhere, copious quantum foam is flowing across the "now" membrane but Past and Future flows are mirror images of one another. So is our immediate past is an anti-matter reflection of ourselves? If we fold this last diagram around the mean so that Now 1/R is side by side with Now R, we have the "double up/down escalator". Furthest from the mean the R represents the most unfolded diameter of the universe (something related to the 13.7 bn light years we interpret). And similarly, the 1/R represents the compacted multidimensional "matter" streaming through the event horizon (or virtual singularity) of a black hole. The anti-universe side of the black hole equates to our big bang. We occupy a parish way down away from the mean. The very large majority of the quantum foam flow finds an annihilating E-M wave partner within a very short distance.

The big problem now is to think what the dice throw (scatter) represents: many, many scatterings or just one lucky throw? I think the answer could be that the standing waves of matter "accrete" on multitudinous scatterings but time has a very different meaning now – the laid out scatterings are probably "outside" of time. Like playing a DVD, the property of time may come about by "reading" information that is embedded in a static probability distribution .

The reflection raises one more interesting possibility. For example, if we were to look into a black hole, there is a point where the density of concentrated "matter" reaches a peak. If we look at refractance, the angle of incidence to the surface where transmission out of the medium stops and internal refection occurs to nearly all of the light that flow is from a less dense medium: roughly, the denser it is the greater this angle. In the extreme of a black hole this angle could be a Planckian fraction away from 90 degrees (a perpendicular). This may have some relevance. It is already obvious that light gets in but not out and the likelihood is that the situation is somehow reversed for the 1/R side.

Matter will emerge only in the neck of these funnels with the heaviest objects (event horizon and neutron stars) occupying the lowest points and the lightest (hydrogen atoms included) occupying the higher points. Referring back to the universe expansion diagram (above) the linear distance will still be the distance across the funnel – not down the funnel and we need to remember this only helps us to easily appreciate two of the three spatial dimensions we are used to. Matter will not flow around the margins of this "sphere". Only electromagnetic waves (or leptons) can skim around its circumference.

So, this leads on the the possible significance of a disc of magnetic force that can emerge in the "observable" dimensions. The "observable" ones are the big ones for us. Remember that what looks big or small to us can, in a mirrored situation, look like the reverse – small and big in string theory. Thus we can have these pairs:

zf+zb zf+yb zf+xb

xf+zb xf+yb xf+xb

yf+zb yf+yb yf+xb

These could represent the "explorable" dimensions in which pairs could emerge as disc like magnetic/electric pairs and each would "obey" the classical Maxwell rule of electromagnetic force. The force could be the expansion of each space possibility. When the f and b (forward time and backward time) are place as a full 3D diagram, the "now" point is at the intersection and there is an enormous energy barrier needed to cross this intersection. That is represented by the red line between the b's and the f's. The blue markers represent right angles.

Remember that the possibility is that this disk of magnetism could be invariably paired with very small disc of electric force (it may have a large electrical and vectored force but it occupies a very small volume). And across the now barrier, the reflection reverses this (an R to 1/R transition – a mirrored arrangement.

(Nb, these pictures taken and adapted from Wikipedia)

Note that the 1/R "sphere" has a chance – through uncertainty – to move into the realm of the R "sphere" and so appear to become a property of the R side of the energy barrier. Now, these chance (and energetic) transpositions may be what give rise to stable matter because they create stable juxtapositioning of positive and negative charges. A true reflection MUST be created on the other side to compensate the temporary "loan". The initial structure should be a 2-D disc that can then wrap around space: the R and the 1/R disc may well have their virtual centres in the same place. The wrap around 2-D sphere certainly appears to be an emergent property that is associated with electron shells around an atom. It is important to try and get away from the idea that time is a real and independent property that is distinct from spatial extent. It may be that time emerges from the multidimensional compaction of the quantal jumps that are possible in 1-D structures (they are far shorter in 9-D space). Spatial extent seems to emerge as a disc of magnetism (an electron or positron transformed from the 1/R to the R form). (The "real" difference in sizes of these two spheres are, first, at the limits of universe expansion – c. 1028 metres – and, second, the smallest possible length – the original "inflaton" point of c. 10-50 metres. And these provide a log10 "half way point" not far from the inner electron shell size of 10-10 metres.)

Some extensions: we can now get a feel for the emergence of matter. Most of the time, a little uncertainty will allow a perturbation that "allows" a magnetic field to expand as a disc then a bubble of space on either side of the now (the nothing, zilch point)- it will quickly expand and subside unless stabilised. Each side borrows "time" from the other side and, if the forward time side could see the backward time side's magnetic field, it would appear to each like a point electric charge (think of the analogy with the clocks on moving spaceships – who is running slow? That depends on your perspective of who is travelling near the SoL.) Every now and again the energy borrowed is large enough to create some uncertainty about over which side the point electric charge is on; then it can apparently become part of the opposite side of the "now" energy barrier. Say it was an electron that appeared then a positron must become visible on the other side of the "now" barrier – because it is a mirror image. Effectively, electron-positron pairs are generated across (and either side of) the "now" point. Note the analogy with the mechanism of Hawking radiation. But at this stage they are never seen as a pair on one side (both if we remember the mirror) of the "past" or the "future". However, if – as we can do – we inject enough energy (improbability in the form of intense and energetic light) into the system, then we can entice an electron/positron pair to appear both on our side of the "now" point and, of course, the mirror image also occurs "over there". So this is one of the simplest generations of matter (an electron-positron pair either across or on both sides of the "now" point). The electron-positron pair appearing on our side will quickly interact with themselves of other electrons (though "other" is hard to ring fence in quantum mechanics) and, if they are anti-particles in that environment, release their stored energy to slip back to nothing as electromagnetic radiation. But, it slips back by "travelling" around the R diameter rather than "down" into the 1/R direction (it "takes the long way round"). The 1/R component of these R-1/R pairs retains its natural entropy gradient that is "pointing" it "the short way" back towards nothing and this is in the opposite direction to the entropy time direction that dominates our lives. It is a manifestation of the up/down escalator concept outlined above.

So – how ridiculous is that? – an anti-matter copy of yourself all within one metre away in the past. It clearly does not look like that. BUT, think it through as an electron. The biggest part of you is a very large positively charged 2-D membrane that can wrap around a large area of space and then a tiny borrowed bit from the past that retains its 1/R nature and turns up as the negatively charged electron 2-D structure that can wrap around an atomic nucleus as a 2-D membrane. If we shift the now point a tiny distance from the future to the past (that is, it sweeps through) then the transition of the electron in this sweep is that, suddenly, the tiny 1/R structure becomes the large R and vice versa for the R structure to the 1/R structure and and we now have a tiny positively charged "particle" set in an very large negatively charged disc or spherical surface. That is, is has become a positron. We don't need to bother too much with the nucleus (though a similar transition should occur) because the vast majority of the volume of matter in our parish is dictated by electron shells. This switch from future to past and vice versa must be hinged on the virtual singularity of the centre of mass of an atom. This is probably much more closely "contiguous" with the centre of mass of the earth, the sun, the galaxy, than we can readily comprehend. (This all needs much more detailed thought and interpretation but it offers some possibilities.)

The "speed of light" becomes dictated by the ratio of how many quantum jumps your parochial wound up state needs to take to equate to a 1-D photon (or "string" if we need to remove all vestiges of 3-D from a photon). So, the SoL will always be read according to ratio of the 1-D quantum uncertainty to the multi-D quantum uncertainty of the measuring device. So, in air, water and glass the SoL decreases progressively from that in a solar system vacuum (the vacuum of deep intergalatic space is probably significantly different to the solar system vacuum as the latter is pervaded by substantial amounts of magnetic flux).

A further interesting thought is one concerning the reflection. Anyone who had played with looking into opposing mirrors will know that there is the first immediate and big reflection of you (which is a bit smaller than the real you) and then a succession of smaller you's stretching out into the limits of retinal definition or of failing reflected intensity. This might prove relevant.

This may all be very, very wrong but it has kept me amused in conjuring it up. And perhaps something will make someone think "I can knock this into much better shape".

Another way of representing things is to think of it as two discs abutting one another (this renders a fairly clear appreciation of two dimensions; adding a third dimension is harder to visualise, so we need to simplify it by considering just two at a time). Much like the expanding space-time sphere (above) that represents the three spatial dimensions as just two on its expanding spherical surface, this disc analogy may help to simplify the conception.

Here, the matter universe we recognise is spread over the top disc. Its increasing entropy is directed towards our future: the "reflected" anti-matter universe is spread "under" the lower disc, with its increasing entropy directed to what we regard as our past. On our, matter, side the dominating mass action of electron shell repulsion determines the arrow of its entropy. On the anti-matter side, positron shell repulsion should determine the direction of entropy increase.) The two are an exact reflection with every matter particle being reflected by an anti-matter particle in the lower disc. Both dominantly "point" into deep intergalactic space where low frequency radiation will "eventually" annihilate. Now – the importance of refraction becomes significant. The way that light is trapped inside a black hole is pretty much paralleled by what happens when refraction turns to reflection. Photons that are approaching the margins of a black hole from the "inside" cannot escape. Perhaps something that approaches the margin at a Planckian fraction less than 90 degrees (normal to the surface) might escape (provided the density boundary is less than infinity to one). But due to the R to 1/R inversion – and the perspective that the anti-matter side perceives the situation to be inverted means that there may be a figure of eight "flow" from the R (extra- electron shell side) to the 1/R (intra-electron – or intra-nuclear – side). This would mean passing through the opposing cartesian coordinates (see diagram above). Drawn above, one looks small and the other big (extra atomic and intra atomic respectively) but from the perspective of the reflection, the view is inverted. This fits nicely with the fact that we seem to be in constant acceleration (who does the work?). We, in our matter universe, are compacting at very near the speed of light and away from our surrounding electromagnetic radiation and this gives us our mass (just as accelerating an object makes it heavier and heavier, smaller and smaller provided the recession is in 3 dimensions – not just the 1-D shortening shortening of spaceships drawn to illustrate linear SoL recession). Remember, we attribute a direction to photon travel but it does not, itself, see any passage of time from "origin" to "target". So, at the hub there is a figure of 8 flow of incoming electromagnetic radiation (matter to anti-matter and vice versa BUT the return out of the opposite side appears to us to come from our past; and it comes from "our future" for the anti-matter reflection (ie, it looks like the big bang and inflation). Towards the periphery of the discs, as the dominant density interface drops to smaller values it may be that a greater leak "back to nothing, nihil, zilch" is an easier event as less reflection occurs and E-M wave annihilation can occur. The R to 1/R transition may come about through a mirrored reflection (remember the hall of mirrors illusion).

All this is HIGHLY speculative but, to me, it seems to have some attraction and it seems to be knitting together a a series of paradoxes. Perhaps someone will see fit to retain some bits that might be of some value and throw out the dross to make a better conception.

Here is a video of an up-down elevator. Imagine that the up elevator is heading in towards (and through?) the atomic nucleus towards Planck scale distances and the down elevator is heading out from the electron shell towards deep intergalactic space. Now imagine that at the top, the up elevator crosses the apex and goes straight down again and likewise the down elevator started its journey on the opposite side as an up elevator. At the apex, the away-from-the-electron-shell-entropy transforms into an into-the-nucleus-to-Planck-scale-entropy and vice versa on the other up/down elevator pair. Transforming this into a flat contra-flowing travelator where two people approach each other from opposite ends, they will each initially see the other as small but as they reach the central point, they will be equally sized and then their positioning transforms. Since we seem to be constructed from waves, this analogy might eventually prove to be very useful.

Here is another (highly conjectural) analogy of what may be happening (diagram below). Matter "production" may well be occurring predominantly around the central parts of this "travelator". Remember that it may be that, while vast distances may be felt from the R perspective of things, the 1/R perspective, interpreted from R, is virtually "joined up" – that is, the nucleus of an atom in a keratin scale from your skin "feels" adjacent to the centre of earth, the centre of the sun, the centre of our galaxy's central black hole and the virtual singularity that subtends all of these previous points back to the "big bang". They are all approachable from within the nucleus of the atom. BUT from the 1/R perspective, this perspective is completely inverted. Perhaps this idea of a "one way mirror" across the two peripheral points (1/R communication with R is blocked and vice versa from the inverted perspective) virtually disappears in deep intergalactic space and the two "universe spheres" become – apparently – superimposed. This could be reinterpreted as the annihilation of photons in deep intergalactic space – they can reach it but will not "return" (or reflect). All matter is "painted" close to the joining cartesian coordinates of the R and 1/R spheres. This would mean that photons from every corner of the universe are able to travel all the way from left to right on the top travelator and all the way from right to left on the bottom one: but not vice versa. This annihilation indicates that the top and bottom representatives of deep intergalactic space are themselves "joined up".

From this perspective, matter and anti-matter are unzipping apart as a "mirror image" from the multiple joined up "now" points. Ultimately, they reach the limit of the unzip at a black hole/big bang (virtual?) singularity. Note how Quad speakers reproduce a stereo sound stage from two virtual points, one in each speaker. This analogy might prove useful.

I have been imagining that magnetic fields might really be a property of electrical fields set up between "R sized and 1/R sized" pairs. Subsequently I will refer to these as radius-divided-by-the-mean and mean-divided-by-the-radius; or r/m and m/r where r can be anything from close to the mean to over 13 bn LY (usually annotated R). But the sequence may be

  1. creation of space by expanding out of nothing
  2. a resulting magnetic field that constricts that expanded space and "tries" to lock it up – back to nothing
  3. the surface tension of this expanded space (and its resultant magnetic field) may give rise to electric charge.

Let me make an assumption and see later if this is justified. The process of creation and annihilation in quantum foam occurs around the statistical mean (towards which entropy is directed and rises). Anything that is created in the turbulence of quantum foam, and which then occasionally "persists" longer than for yoctoseconds, emerges from the improbable extremes of a probability curve distributed around the mean. Matched pairs of spatial bubbles (r/m and m/r) form around the mean. Their sum always equates to zero and, when they meet, they are able to annihilate each other "back" to nothing. Nothing may, at base, be a virtual singularity – a zero dimensional point that has one important property. It has enough uncertainty that it can never actually "reach" zero – there is an unstable Planckian limit to its smallness (m/R) which is inversely equivalent to the universe's largeness (R/m). That is, ultimately, the limits of size may be R/m and m/R where capital R represents the extreme extent of "bigness" and 1/R the extreme extent of smallness – Planck size. The mean is probably between 10-10 and 10-14 metres. So all pairs are created in radius-divided-by-the-mean and mean-divided-by-the-radius pairs that will annihilate when their "fleeting" existences are able to "meet" once again. So, near the mean, the ratio of the pairs generated that are within 4 standard deviations of the mean will be around 1000 to 1 or more. So, if the quantum observation that reality is maintained through constant exchanges with virtual "particles" is extrapolated to this, there will be a "wind" of creation-annihilation that swamps any emergent "persisters" close to the mean. Now the distance from electron shell to nucleus is around this order or magnitude and this may be very relevant to the apparent capacitative barrier that exists between them. Now, if we play with a couple of magnets and bring opposite poles together, we will feel the force that is "trying" to close out the space between these poles – it is roughly a centripetal force (normal to the magnetic field lines).

Now consider the magnetic field around a straight wire; any expansion of the field (into the surrounding "space") generates an electric charge around the sphere of the magnetic field (and vice versa – charge producing an expanding magnetic field). The magnetic field has clear dimensionality but the electric charge may just be a vector force smeared over the approximately spherical surface of the magnetic field lines. And, it should be apparent that – with zero resistance in the wire – this alternation of spatial expansion and contraction will oscillate indefinitely with the magnetic field direction and the electrical charge reversing every 180 degrees. So space itself may be generated out of 180 degree out of phase pairs (2 phase annihilation; perhaps – just perhaps – sets of three or more phases that can annihilate – just like the electric grid – might be possible though, likely, less probable.) And this generation will occur around the mean (sum = zero energy, 100% probability it adds up to zero). So, from the virtual 0-D singularity we can envisage that, first, a 1-D scenario of oscillation occurs then, more recognisably for string theorists, a 2-D membrane from which spatial pairs on the r/m and the m/r sides of the mean blow up bubbles of space. In the extreme, the m/r side will look like tiny "strings" (membranes?) and the r/m side as magnetic fields that encompass the 13.7 bn LY (plus?) universe. This scenario opens the possibility of a surface tension like effect. Whether it was an attractive or repulsive force that led to this would not affect the effect that an open surface around the margins of the generated space should alter the tension generated around its 3-D (or multi-D) limits. Electromagnetic waves, in this perspective, look like an oscillating pair of spatial bubbles. There could be a pair with a large positronic spatial expansion surrounding a small point charge (the electron). We interpret the positronic spatial expansion as a magnetic field. As these two collapse back to a virtual point they would swap over as they travel through the mean. For occupants of the two sides of the mean, the perspective of who is big and small (the point electric charge) is inverted. This fits nicely with "a packet of energy" and it is possible to take two perspective. This oscillating +ve/-ve charged expansion and collapse of spatial extent may be moving though space or space is moving through the oscillation. Space itself (what we consider 13.7 bn light yrs) may be, itself, part of the largest and most improbable oscillation. The energy of this oscillation consists of just potential energy at the peak of the oscillation (largest spatial expansion) and just kinetic energy at the crossover. Add the two together and we get a repeating theme that the net averaged energy of this dumbell crossover system adds up to zero.

Now that leads on to another conjecture. Where exactly is the universal mean? – the ultimate 1 value that would be indivisible and come in strict quanta. I have already suggested that inside the atom that there is an R/mean to mean/R inversion. Depending on your perspective, the one inside your atom is the 1/R (or mean/R) "universe". We need to think which has primacy – time or space. Is time a product of dimensional winding or is dimensional winding a product of time. Now, short (or even long term) borrowing is the basis of the generation of quantum foam. Spatial extent (1-D to 3-D) may simply be a product of how long the spatial extent has in which to bubble out. The vast majority are very short term loans that can occur in either the T/mean or the mean/T directions.

It is often said that our universe may contain positive and negative energy. We need to remember the close association of energy with an improbably concentrated distribution. Remember that entropy involves (perpetual?) change and that this leads away from concentration towards dispersion and results in both macro- and micro-scopic homogenisation. Gravity, on the other hand, leads from dispersion and initial homogenisation to concentration (or a progressive condensation into multi-D). In this respect, it is a manifestation of an entropy with the opposite polarity to the entropy (an arrow of time) that we usually acknowledge. The other point – which I read recently – is that energy has no direction. Now this might not be "true". Energy wanting to return to the mean by dispersing into deep intergalactic space (ultimately, infra-red photons) has a direction which is away from the nucleus. If we invert this, we have energy that wants to return to the mean in a direction pointing into the nucleus (what we regard as gravity). However, once across the mean, the perspective immediately inverts. So, could the mean actually be the size of the electron shell? Anything that looks (to us) to be smaller that that is actually through the mean and heading off into the mean/R "universe" (but it will see the situation inverted). The electron shell – being right on the mean – will be subject to a torrential creation/annihilation of time borrows that are very close to the mean. Although it might look like one electron, it is in a state of perpetual swapping or virtual for real. This creates, effectively, a Faraday cage "within" which there is no net electric field. Any charge within it can occuy any spot in the "enclosed" sphere. Since the radius is the mean (the 1 of the R/1 and 1/R "universes") the charge density at any one point of the electron shell is charge/4πr2 . The charge density inside this sphere is charge/4/3πr3 OR, rearranging 3 charges/4πr3 . Since the radius in both instances is one, r2 = r3 . So we need 3 (fundamental) quantal charges inside the "Faraday" cage to balance one fundamental quantal charge around the surface of this cage. The actual charge inside is perfectly balanced with the outside charge. Of course, the perspective is inverted from the other side. Now, this is tortuous and quite likely nonsense but – perhaps – just maybe? If we think of this perspective inversion occurring around the mean "plane" that cuts through the torus mentioned earlier, matter will form in the torrent of created/annihilated quantum foam temporally close to this plane. Rather than time being some illusion of distance, distance may actually be some illusion of time (about the mean in a T/mean and mean/T pattern around a virtual point of zero time).

Following on from the earlier videos of how our universe may be "formed" in torus fashion, this video highlights what I think is a wrong interpretation. Watching this video we see the galaxies being spewed out of the funnel of the torus, cycling around the periphery and then being swallowed up on the opposite side. However, these largest "strings" are the "opening" out of (deep intergalactic) space and are the place where true annihilation of energy can occur (the repayment of borrowed energy/time) – the zero energy point. All that exists here is the uncertainty that spawns quantum foam and the occasional persisters that form stable fempto-capacitors that emerge into stable atoms (like the diesel + oxygen analogy of two closed entropic systems) and then more complex matter. We (in the spiral arm of our galaxy) are well into the neck of this funnel and will never emerge (as intact molecules) from this. This is our existential standing wave condition. If we imagine a contra rotating flow of photons or other waves, outward from the neck of our funnel and inward from the periphery of the torus, then we are probably persistent, standing waves that are forced into a morphostatic technique to maintain order (even though that order is constantly under attack by the relentless fempto-scopic jitteriness imposed by entropy). From the perspective of the inward (photonic?) waves from deep intergalactic space, we are accelerating out at nearly the speed of light (hence light always "travels" at the speed of light). The "bending" of light by the sun's gravity can be, equally, explained as the accelerating expansion of the earth during that interval that light takes to travel from beside the sun to the earth. Gravity, then, by this perspective, is not an attractive force but the literal (from a photon's perspective) expanding invasion of the photon's space by matter.

Here is yet another view that may help in appreciating possibilities.

The density of condensation (from one partner's view to the other – and that will invert across the "now" membrane) ensures a one way travel of electromagnetic waves. We should not be able to see anything (photonically) "shining" out from the nuclear "virtual singularity". The "wind" of fairly "equal" spatial-sphere-pairs (4 standard deviations around 10,000 to 1) should vastly outnumber the rarer unequal spatial-sphere-pairs. They are not unequal in probability (and thus energy). Because rarer pairs are much more "energetic" (far more improbable) this imbalance of mutual perspective grows and the now barrier gets more extreme.

If we go back to the idea that there is a perspective change at the top of the double escalators (or centre of the travelators) it is important to look at what is happening as we "travel" through the mean (where the perspective inversion should occur). Think of an atom and what will happen to perspective as we "travel" into it. We start off – on our matter side – with the large magnetic field ("string") on the outside and the small (electron?) string on the inside. The moment we look from the perspective of the "inside" of the electron sphere the perspective inverts and the small string becomes the large magnetic field and the large magnetic field becomes the small string. Matter changes into anti-matter BUT the wind of quasi-equal pairs that are being created and annihilated between the two may have an influence on keeping the just-in-the-past elements and the just-in-the-future elements apart and prevent them from annihilating.

Here is another set of thoughts: if we strip away all but the largest (and its reciprocal, smallest, dumbbell-pair partner) it might be possible to get a clearer view of what is happening. For the moment, assume these "add-up-to-nothing" dumbbell pairs act like pure sine waves (remember the analogy with the opposing faces of dice that can always add up to zero – in the entropy section). As the spatial "dumbbells" oscillate through the mean there will be a maximum amplitude (biggest vs smallest – but that perspective changes through the mean so the smallest appears to suddenly "inflate", through the mean, into the biggest: and vice versa). At the maximum amplitude, on each side, all that particular side's "motion" is converted to potential energy. As we approach the mean (minimum amplitude), all the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy (just like pendular or spring-like oscillations). So that means that the the largest oscillation sets the maximum "speed" through the mean (the SoL?). Now lets add a few smaller, component oscillators and imagine them as springs that can stretch enormously (to almost straight) then contract back to coiled and – one further point – all the coils can pass unobstructed by their own rings through the mean so that the spring "inverts". So we now have springs that unwind into maximum tension at the largest amplitude of oscillating (maximal) space and concertina (wind up) at the smallest (the mean). Now the whole process can be vastly complicated by adding in a myriad subsidiary extra "springs" that become the fabric of the standing waves of our (visible/tangible) cosmos. This means that – if the standing waves are "built" close to the mean – matter is represented in that portion of the largest amplitude sine wave that is, at that point, all kinetic and little potential energy: it is "travelling" at the maximum velocity. Space is contracting at its maximal velocity and we – on earth – are standing "still" by virtue of our rotational acceleration (spiral arm, planetary). Now, we know from Einstein's relativity that, if something is moving to or away from you at the speed of light, we perceive that it becomes shortened and its time slows to a standstill. If the acceleration is into the mean, contraction to electron shell size and then expansion out the other side of the sine wave, then it is contracting at the speed of light in all three dimensions. So, not only is it shortening in one direction, it is contracting in all three – become increasingly point like. We also know, from Einstein, that the question of who's time and dimensions are shortening depends on which perspective you take (which "space ship" you happen to be travelling in) and this shortening only becomes "real" if one side moves suddenly into the others domain (eg, muons slamming into the earth).

One inevitable conclusion to all this is that time will appear to be very different on the two sides. On "our side" there appears to be one single maximal (age of the universe or more) dumbbell expansion. But we can "see" or "feel" the influence of the other side and this appears to consist of countless minimal spatial oscillations – not just one. This perspective is reversed on the other side. So, here is an early feel for "multiverses" and the first indication that this dumbell structure could be the generator of a Darwinian style emergence of persistent matter. We can also imagine that, with countless subsidiary spatial-dumbell-pairs, there is the potential for a maelstrom of turbulent chaos near the mean and a bland sameness and calm at the periphery. Also, the tension – like surface tension – is around the spatial expansion which results in a net force towards the (electron shell) mean. A question that remains is how we end up with a 3-D universe rather than a 2-D universe but that may be part of the emergence or it requires expanding the dimensions to three from the 2-D surface of a time/distance sphere (as in the diagram above). Remember, the oscillations are NOT forward in time but back and forth in time. The stable emergence occurs in mirror image fashion either side of the mean (one "forward" and one "backward" in time – or should I say one "forward" and one "backward" in entropy direction).

VERY preliminary thoughts (here to the end): All this implies that the mean needs to be a geometric mean – not an arithmetic mean. The geometric mean of two numbers, say 10+35 and 10-35, is the square root of (10+35 x 10-35) which is 100 or, put more simply, 1 (this range was chosen to be around the universe's ball park). Don't forget that anything below 100 and continuing to as low as 10-35 would "see" things inverted – it would perceive there to be "expansion" not "contraction" in going from 100 to 10-35. There are a number of good reasons why it should be a geometric mean. There is no value of zero in the range (there is very big and very small but no zero value and the inversion dictates that there is a minimum size). Energy is an improbably concentrated distribution of values that are at least several standard distributions outside the mean. Energy in kinetic form is represented by 1/2mv2 and in mass form by mc2 (Einstein). The potential form of the energy of an object which is at "infinity" from a gravitationally attractive body is equal to the kinetic energy it accumulates in moving from "infinity" to the attractor. In book by Brian Cox and Jeff Foreshaw (pp 74-101 – it's a useful place to be introduced to the concept), they establish the relationship between time and space (distance) but take its square root. However, if it represents energy then it is possibly better to leave the equations in the squared state. This leads to their diagram where there is a no-go area (Minkowski space) of energy transfer set around a virtual point (values are always shy of this virtual point). These observations point towards a unitary minimum when values either side of the mean never drop below "one unit" but simply invert by their power of ten becoming its reciprocal (so the range 10+35 to 10-35 becomes, at transition, 10-35 to 10+35 and the perspective of who's power is inverted depends upon which side of the mean you view it from. Interestingly, that puts a slightly different perspective on the role of the imaginary number √(-1), usually called "i", which turns up in electrical calculations of capacitor/inductor circuits (where the convention is to call it "j" rather than "i"). This may only be real (and meaningful) if we consider it as a manifestation of a transition from "positive" to "negative" energy; it might be that it is our conviction that we need to reduce it to its "roots" that may be the imaginary entity rather than the imaginary number "j" itself. And all this may, anyway, be a reflection of statistical variance which is also calculated with squared values. Pythagorus gives us

(adjacent)2 + (opposite)2 = (hypotenuse)2

or

x2 + y2 = z2

and that can be rearranged into

y2 = z2 – x2

Which is the form of their equation and that might challenge which value represents the "true" hypotenuse. The "distance" between two "events" may actually need to "adjust" to this inversion across the mean. Time is, arguably, the direct outcome of the inversion of distance into time across the mean – as we go from external to internal space. So time is a direct function of 1/distance once we cross the mean. The earlier analogy of balanced "dice" face pairs suggests energy is created in matched pairs or positive and negative energy amplitude across the inner and outer atomic space (inner and outer depending on "your" perspective). Photons are likely to be made up of a balanced pair that oscillates around the mean. Both maximal amplitudes (inner and outer space) can be measured in terms of either time or distance

c/t or simply d

since, when using a laser-distance-measuring-device,

d = c/t

So, (external space) = (internal space)-1 for these matched, net zero energy, pairs. And it is arguable that time is directly proportional to the reciprocal of distance. As the local concentration of internal space in external space increases (gathering into planets, suns, black holes), so the mass action effect of proximal internal space is progressively interpreted by us as a slowing of time (and, for that matter, mass).

So, the diagram on page of the Cox/Foreshaw book is starting to look very much like the double asymptote diagram (above) but rotated through 45 degrees. If we call the left hand side N(orth), the right S, the top E and the bottom W, I wonder if the N to S axis is across the central funnel of the torus (above) and the "intrusions" of the E and W curves might just possibly result in reflection by extreme refraction. That could satisfy the outcome of a no-go area in the centre. This is hyper conjectural. Looped strings of spatial expansion, which become charged, may become what we interpret as electrons and positrons when "seen" from the mean/R perspective (this reciprocal perspective would explain why they appear far smaller than the electron shell).

So, let's return to the idea that the past can be just a millimetre away and yet, in effort distance, it might as well be on the other side of the universe. As we dive through the R/mean into the mean/R point, this represents a funnel – like the wormhole diagram above. The funnel diameter is set – in this scheme – to be at around (if not actually) the diameter of an electron cloud around an atom. In our matter universe (we see it as an R/mean construction) the direction of time is set by the highly improbable compaction of matter to the very probable homogenisation to fill all our universe's space (the large majority deep intergalactic space). I'll call our side the North side and the anti-universe "reflection" the South side and that is probably in keeping with the "magnetic" field that the "surface tension" of expanding outer and contracting inner space produces through becoming "electrically" charged (or we can call it expanding North space and, by its perspective, expanding South space – or explained more fully – the matter side sees expanding North space and contracting South space and the South side expanding South space and contracting North space). An electron will be our view of expanding South space. So, on the North side, the direction of entropy is forward in our time whilst on the South side, the direction of entropy is in the opposite direction. North is now to future; South is now to past. It is like an very small ring is moving along a pair of figure of eight looped strings (which add up to nothing and oscillate North to South and vice versa), but there are miriads of these string loops and and miriad constriction points. But the constriction points are "converging" on (or subtended back towards) a virtual "point". All time is probably produced by an oscillation of spatial R/mean + mean/R pairs. Sustained 1900 to 2000 time is a manifestation of the apparent slowness of our outer space (North space) oscillation. This may be an illusion of our counter acceleration (mostly by rotation) just "above" the sine wave crossover, where the energy of the wave is kinetic rather than potential. The South side, of course, will lie just "below" the opposite side of the crossover. Could we be getting an outer space view of oscillation that is end on, like looking at a spring from one end when it will look just like a circle? The North's view of the South would be a tiny oscillation strung out across contracting space and so will look like an oscillating wave rather than a static (but oscillating) mean/R spatial incursion. Now we can envision a scenario where quantum foam is generated across the disc that separates North from South in the torus (we may have to view it as 4-D with our 3-D conceptualisation adapted for a paper representation – like the earlier diagram of an expanding spatial sphere around a time radius). I suspect this 4th dimension might be "ironed" out by reconsidering the effect of the R/mean to mean/R inversion and the fact that it is a geometric, not an arithmetic mean. The time radius may simply reflect the fact that one of our dimensions is trading R/mean for mean/R directionality (or two are trading it and one not – think thru). This is why galaxy discs, where there is substantial rotation, tend to be flat. (The fatter galaxies or parts of them might have lower rotational energy?) This end-on-view of the "spring" could mean that the North's view of outer space will perceive very few oscillations whilst it will perceive countless oscillations in its view of inner space which is the North's view of the South side.

Wikipedia's article on Minkowski space has this diagram.

Now, this is looking pretty much similar to some of the points made above. One important point about slipping through from the matter to antimatter state (electron charge outside the atom = matter and positron charge outside the atom = antimatter) is that the direction of entropy flips immediately. In both universes, photons dissipate energy throughout space (the vast majority going to deep intergalactic space because that is the overwhelmingly dominant state). Remember these cones only represent two of the three spatial dimensions (not just the two that this simplified diagram presents). Logic would suggest that these two expanding footballs ultimately expand until at maximum amplitude, the upward and downward entropy flows merge together in deep intergalactic space. Matter can only persist where rotational acceleration exactly counterbalances the natural accelerating collapse of space towards atoms, planets, stars, galactic centres and by Einsteinian definition it is in this matter state because it is accelerating at close to the speed of light (remember the sine wave thing – virtual no momentum at maximum amplitude of spatial expansion and virtually no amplitude at maximum momentum of spatial collapse. So, it remains very close to the mean (sine wave energy above the mean is exactly equal to that below; it adds up to zero).

Every atom is a tiny window into half the energy of the universe, and it feels its influence. The more compact we pack atoms, the greater the mass action effect of the accumulating windows into the other half of the universe (across the torus). Although the mean/R perspective would see vast universal distances, we only perceive the "anti"verse (or the South Universe) by its influence exerted through the tunnel of one or very many more electron; and it apears to be tinier than an atom. So gravity IS the effect of reversing entropy. We experience it because it is pack up inside an atom. And when there are many atoms packed close together, its influence grows massively. Effectively, the insides of an atoms are trying to evaporate away towards deep intergalactic space on the mean/R universe.

The graphs below highlight points about this Minkowski space – that bit around the tips of the two cones. If it were possible to have a zero value at the cone tip ±[√(x2+0)] then there would not be any "no-go" areas and no big barrier to the immediate past. (Needs thinking thru.)

Remember, the contention is that an "inhabitant" of the "North-side" of the torus sees the "South-side" in a mean/R configuration. On the other hand, an "inhabitant" of the "South-side" of the torus sees the "North-side" to be in the mean/R configuration.

A conundrum to resolve is how these two sides swap over – or do they bounce/reflect? Is it a form of quantum tunnelling? The crossover is a problem. How does the R/mean to mean/R take place and over what "distance" or "sphere of influence"? How does the sudden change to 1/3rds get explained away with the appearance of quarks "on the other side" (I have already suggested a high degree of symmetry that this ugly fact leaves looking "awkward"). The answer – probably – is that there is no crossover, just spherical contraction then expansion about the "now" point. If the idea proves well founded, that it is some sort of surface tension that leads to electrical charge, then this suggests that the multidimensional dance that begets "matter" is taking place by intereactions of the surfaces of multiple expanding contracting spatial "spheres". Then, the importance of the circles within the Minkowski space (bottom row) gains extra significance. Perhaps matter standing waves "bounce" at the electron shell boundary between "positive-North-entropy" and "negative-South-entropy". It is already "deemed" that a neutron is – effectively – a proton in combination with an electron so the extension to quarks and positrons seems natural – but how? One further observation is this: the R/mean to mean/R transition may act rather (but not exactly) like a right angle. As we approach on the R/mean side, we get closer then suddenly no closer but progressively further away – which is rather like what happens as we approach the "opposite" from the "adjacent" side of a triangle. So that might influence the maths.

De-Sitter spacetime is an extension of Minkowski spacetime where there is no "fall" to an infinitesimal singularity. These diagrams (below) are taken from this paper and show how two spheres "interconnect". However, it is important to remember that these are 2-D representations (expanding "cone") of a 3-D universe. The upper and lower poles are "occurring" in the same space but their entropies are reversed top to bottom. It is only at large distances from the "funnel" that the two entropies become saturated and, thus, easily miscible. The points just above and just below the funnel are an immense "effort-distance" apart and therefore do not – at this proximity – homogenise back to nihil/zilch. (First diagram De-Sitter space, second Hyperbolic space.)

This is rather nice, because, we can imagine dropping a coin into one of those vortices that collect money for charity. This is rather like what may happen in an electron shell. At the periphery, not much holds up the travel towards the hole. Indeed, if the travel to the hole is "perpendicular", it (a photonic wave) goes straight in. But any degree of deviance from the perpendicular will amplify as the hole is approached and it will hold up the coin's disappearance. This might be exactly equivalent to what is happening as atoms are formed and what gives them "persistence". The top sphere and bottom sphere are, effectively, superimposed but their opposite entropies prevent annihilation occurring at this place.

I have added a link to a new figure here on prime numbers. Primes are, by definition, are fundamental and non-harmonic. They can be part of a harmonic if in multiple instances (eg, 13+13 = 26) but are fundamental on their own. Quantum physics seems to suggest a pervasive exclusion principle that suggests that the population of new "possibilities" is restricted to unique components. When we graph the distribution of intervals between successive primes we end up with a histogram that is very reminiscent of a Minkowski like distribution.

The following perspective might have some value: if this view of a "mean" set about the "diameter" of an inner electron shell proves correct, then it offers a fresh view. You have possibly seen, even looked through, those multiple pinhole focusers that ophthalmologists and hospital ophthalmic departments use. Well, this may well prove a useful analogy that helps us to look through a "now membrane" to escape the straightjacket of time. Every atom is like a pinhole allowing us to "see" through from the North side of the torus to the Southside. It may act like a diffraction grating with the wave functions of either side instantly able to interact with each other, through the tunnel. On emergence from the tunnel (on either side) the wavefunction can then resume its expanding wave front as it spreads out into deep intergalactic space. We need to adapt the analogy to encompass the idea that these pinholes emerge, like wormholes, through multiple locations in both "time" and space. I think there is possibly some value in this analogy, particularly in perceiving how we can get an apparent right angle from the R/mean to mean/R transition and why the perspective is inverted either side of the mean (R/mean becomes mean/R and vice versa).

So, we could have a situation where baryonic matter and baryonic anti-matter are separated by "effort distance" (effectively similar to spacetime) but not by "distance" (remember, the past can be femptometres away but "a universe of effort" apart). To bring some analogy to this, think of a mirrored, spiky surface covering the inner "substance" of a sphere. Or, alternatively, a combined real and mirrored image of coniferous trees in a lake. The lake surface represents the surface of a (merged – see Entropy and this section) big bang/black hole singularity. At the tips of the tree branches, with their pine "needles", are the countless individual atoms. (The tips of the spikes on the ball represent a point where a mirror image of the ball is occupied by the same point at its centre but now the reflection is like a ghosted superposition of similarly shaped spikes in the same place but at opposite "time" poles – or "entropy poles".) Each electron shell of the countless atoms, are approached and exited at the SoL, and can – once inside the substance of the tree (spike ball) and its reflection – slip to the opposite (reflected) side (virtually?) instantaneously. So, whenever we are measuring/assessing the SoL we are seeing it enter or exit electron shells at the same standard speed (because it lies at the mean of the sine wave). In deep intergalactic space, the net energy of the universe is near enough zero but a little bit has been borrowed to form a perfectly balanced (to zero energy – zero improbability) "gravitated matter" in a perfect and mirrored balance of "positive" and "negative" energy (effectively mirrored entropy gradients that are both "headed" back towards conditions typical of deep intergalactic space) and these form persistent and relatively time stable matter. "Time" condenses out of nothing (timelessness) from quantum foam and does so symmetrically around a virtual singularity who's "diameter" will never be less than that of an electron shell. Now that takes us back to the idea that virtually all incident photons will arrive at the surface of the singularity at a finite angle (not a perfect normal to the singularity "surface") and, thus, be reflected back because the density here is subtending to "infinitely dense". So distance separation has been traded into time separation (in the mirrored matter state) and we perceive the effort distance of their separation to be immense. Perhaps these simplistic notions could be enhanced to something useful.

In all this, R/mean is perceived as our conventional perspective of distance and mean/R is perceived dominantly as as our perspective of time. This is easy to see because, with any oscillating clock (ALL clocks oscillate in one way or another) we are trying to waggle a whole universe backward and forward when we waggle an atom. For single atoms the distance of the rest of the South-side is remote but, when we pack more and more atoms into a confined space, multiples local windows should make this oscillatory inertia more and more influential in the local area. Thus, the passage of time will appear to slow.

The big bang is now more clearly seen as a "bounce" through the torus and inflation as the consequence of negative-South-side entropy working its way through. I suspect that the maths for inflation could prove to be similar but the metaphor attributed to it different.

All this is still awkward and embryonic in conception: it will change or even be abandoned where I realise it really is nonsense.

One advantage of the idea that the inner and outer universe (perspective reversed for each member universe) pivots around the "electron shell" diameter is that, in sine wave fashion, flows through the pivot point reach a maximum for the most common wavelength (very long) and, so, they enter towards the pivot at the SoL and emerge at the SoL. So any device checking the SoL will see it as a maximum constant. We tend to think of it as a flow past us whereas it may be a flow into and out of us (us being our constituent atoms).

Points to be integrated into the text later:

The view I am developing is this: for photons, time is pretty meaningless. They just "are". Like the "wavefunction" they have a ubiquitous presence that permeates throughout all of space with "no respect" for time or distance. For them, the distance across the universe is miniscule, there is no "passage of time" for them. In deep intergalactic space, they are the dominating presence. In deep intergalactic space they sum up to zero energy through interference. It is only when matter evolves through chance high energy accumulations (highly improbability concentrations that "derive" from the fundamental uncertainty principle) that time and persistence appear to become important. Time is "crafted" out of deeper and deeper wells of "a progressive slowing of the passage of time". However, this time is in a perfect balance of matter wells and antimatter wells. The reason that they do not annihilate (remember the matter capacitor) is that these time/matter wells lead to larger and larger half-lives of the particles concerned. At the statistical "mean" that separates matter from antimatter (-ve atom shell entropy from +ve atom shell entropy) there is an inversion of "perspective". The atomic nucleus is a manifestation of our "view" of the reciprocal antimatter universe contained within the electron shells of matter (and vice versa). Time is a manifestation of "how far" things are away from each other, within the nucleus, from the antimatter-side perspective. The view from the antimatter side is that the distances of a positron-entropy dominated universe are huge but from an electron-entropy dominated universe they appear to be contained within a nucleus. How is this possible? Well, that earlier argument, that the passage time "slows" massively at an event horizon, comes to the rescue. The distance, from the event horizon of our galaxy's black hole to the event horizon of the assumed "big bang", should be much, much smaller (infinitessimally?) at the event horizon, than the 13.7 BnLY that we perceive from our perspective in the proximity of Mother Earth. General relativity seems to permit some sort of wormhole (time portal). All matter is a balanced condensation of electron-positron-pair derived improbabilities that form condensing time-slowing wells in an otherwise timeless photonic universe. Partial time wormholes are probably a manifestation of every atom in the universe, and they "join up" linking atoms to rocks to asteroids to planets to suns to galaxies and to event horizons till all "project" back to one "virtual(?) big bang event". This big bang "event" will be very different to the popular "unimaginably big explosion" interpretation. Within the "wormhole" created within electron (or positron) foci, the transition from a 2-D enveloping membrane to a 3-D (or more) "universe within a nucleus" (which, of course, is a perspective that is completely inverted for a positron dominated universe) results in apparently different physical properties of the balancing positronic shells "within" the nucleus of an atom. (This could, perhaps, work but I can't imagine exactly how at the moment.) However, this "immediate" intra-nuclear structure is a property of the "wormhole" between matter and anti-matter dominated universes. Every atom in our bodies is, through its own "electron-shell-enclosed-wormhole" incredibly "close" (that is, it is in high capacitance with) its antimatter mirror. The "structures in both decay (half-lives again – a consequence of the time-well) but one through matter domination, via photons and progressive red shifts, to deep intergalactic space and the other, at the other end of the (toroid?) wormhole, through antimatter domination, via photons and progressive red shifts, to the same deep intergalactic space. At this point they "meet" and sum up to absolutely "zero". It is the creation of condensing "time-wells" that allows the "progressive" evolution (emergence) of an apparent event as unimaginably improbable as the (virtual) "big bang". This general view has, possibly, some merits that may commend pursuit and refinement.

Points about "time"

Anchor points:

Further thoughts on the nature of photons

I wonder if this is a good perspective? I will write it authoritatively but it is conjecture. I introduced the idea, earlier on, that photons were were a manifestation of expanding/contracting space; at its simplest, like an expanding then contracting bubble of space. Now, light has two components; an alternating electric charge and an alternating magnetic field. I have already suggested that a magnetic "monopole" constitutes the outer "skin" of this bubble of magnetic space and the electric monopole the relativistic (SoL) manifestation of this electric bubble of space (that appears to us as tiny though someone moving with the electric bubble would see our magnetic bubble as the tiny one). Although it is still the "outer skin" of the electric bubble that is "charged", it appears to us to be very small because the electric property is "travelling" at the SoL; it appears to a "static" observer as tiny. The magnetic property, however, is static from our perspective and thus "large". The electric property is still a manifestation of cyclically expanding/contracting space but it appears to us to be almost point like. As it "travels" through the vacuum, it induces a static expansion of magnetic space with a positive (expanding) or a negative (contracting) charge on it outer "skin". This drives the electric (relativistic) component of the light wave on the crest (outer skin) of the alternating magnetic bubble – just like those old western-railroad hand driven cars. The rails are like a whole series of expanding contracting "magnetic bubbles" that disappear at zero-charge/zero-magnetic-field to reappear, immediately, one bubble length further on. Since the charge on expanding space is positive (the universe perspective) the growing magnetic field repulses the electric charge on the crest of this wave of sequential magnetic bubbles. This probably has important implications for the nature of electrons (to be thought through). [Nb, this is still problematic as we need to work out how the electric "bubble" moves from "left" to "right" skin of the magnetic bubble - hmmm.]

Further thoughts on space-time

Going back to the original suggestion that "antiversal" distance appears to us as time (and vice versa from the anti-versal perspective), let's think about a very simple "system" of just one electron (and, by implication, an antiversal positron because they only "exist" as a pair). Just as electron positron pairs can (theoretically) be segregated across an event horizon (and thus make evanescent, spontaneous electron/positron pairs persistent – ie, the tunnel between the electron and the positron of a pair becomes very elongated) so all electrons or positrons have a distant, wormhole-entangled, opposite partner (positron or electron respectively). Electrons are very stable suggesting that this "wormhole entanglement" can last a long time (be interconnected over very long distances - which equates to persistence vs evanescence). We need to remember that space is likely to be circular. That is, head off North and you will eventually come back, through the South, to your starting point. So, time is the same: head off into the future and you will eventually return to your starting point via the past (but, of course, time is only antiversal distance). From the perspective of a "point" electron, both universal and antiversal distance lie "outside" this "point". It is just that they appear to be either a feature of the future ("outbound" distance) or of the past ("inbound" distance). [This is vaguely working, I think.]

On the same theme, when we look at a galactic centre ("down the plug hole" as it were) we are seeing the manifestation of relativistic (balanced) photon pair recession. The opposite, photon pair expansion, could well appear as an accumulation of antiversal positron "shells" that appear to be extremely large in diameter. By assumption, they are invisible/non-interacting to universal matter but their influence may well be perceivable and gravity may well be a "local" manifestation of proximal/distal imbalence (just as an atom, at substantial distance, has no net charge but, as the electron shells "collide" the repulsive force becomes immense – the force that gives us the experience of "hitting a concrete wall"). So, we would expect, perhaps, to see some manifestation of this magnetically dominated (vs electrically dominated) force surrounding the galactic centre in much the same way as dark matter seems to "congregate", at large distances and in roughly spherical distribution, around galactic centres. [That is worth a thought, perhaps.]

Big bang origin or steady state generation of matter?

It has long been assumed that the big bang theory of the origin of the universe has eclipsed Fred Hoyle's steady state idea. It is easy to see how Hoyle came to his conclusion; the spontaneous generation of virtual pairs, all over our vast universe, could lead to occasionally persistent electron positron pairs that fail to "revert back" to radiation (we have tended to call this annihilation but it is really the release of "wound up" photons back to free photons); persistent particles, then, could gradually organise into hydrogen that can then "ascend" the complexity ladder to helium, beryllium, carbon, etc etc, uranium then much heavier elements [deep inside massive stars] and then to neutron stars. If the earlier conjecture on these pages is well founded, the next step is matter collapse to black holes. Now, the current view of black holes is they they form exclusively in the "2000 yrs BC to 2000 yrs AD" time direction. But the current perception proposed in these pages is that the "future" meets the "past" at the event horizon. Perspective inverts over the event horizon (to "form" the antiverse). The universe sees tantalising evidence that the universe expanded from an extremely small "kernel" (generally considered to be a singularity). However, we can still form a perspective of Fred Hoyle's steady state generation of matter that coalesces out of quantum foam. Now, as often happens in science, personalities prefer to adopt one perspective and reject another though they might both be valid, depending upon the perspective stance adopted. I guess that the photonic building blocks that disappear down a black hole (wound up as matter) suddenly reappear over great distances as the quantum foam that can form virtual particles. In reality, these may be extremely evanescent particles that occasionally survive for longer periods of time given the right circumstances. Stephen Hawking led us to one important circumstance that might generate an efficient "rectification" process; this is across the event horizon of a black hole. A torus perspective has the universe at one "tunnel" entrance of the torus and the antiverse at the opposite entrance. There is already speculation that entanglement occurs across this toric tunnel. We should be able to look out, away from from the tunnel entrance, around a wide sweep that appears to us to be "a straight line" (remember, the wave collapse to Planck size will suddenly invert as photonic waves begin to expand again – probably with inverted polarity; so the tunnel hides the point where the past reconvenes with the future). What we should see is evidence of a time inverted collapse to a black hole that looks, to us, like a big bang. So both perspectives might be justified and reconcilable. Time just becomes the equivalent of "antiversal distance"; equally universal distance becomes the equivalent of antiversal time. Buried in here is a perspective that only allows photons to dock and undock with electron shells at the speed of light (ie, at 300,000 km/sec; now this corresponds to 300,000 universal km per 300,000 antiversal km – this is a 1:1, unity ratio). Particle persistence/existence only becomes manifest once the universal "speed" is substantially less than the SoL – a universe/antiverse distance ratio of much less than 1. [I think this perspective holds a deal of promise.]

Note, although described as a torus, the actual process is more like an expanding contracting spatial sphere with the toric tunnel being "through" the collapsed sphere (entangling them), crossing from universal to antiversal side. The conjecture is that an electron is a balanced (entangled) pair of photonic spheres that pass through each other, balancing each other out. Where they reach maximal potential energy [vs maximum kinetic energy as they pass through the toric tunnel – 2 lots of 1/2mc2], they come to an expansion halt then recollapse towards the toric tunnel. Note that I have used time here but the real "sequence" are states where the universal-spacetime to the antiversal-spacetime ratio varies, as they map out to be much less than one, then equal at one and then much greater than one. This sits nicely with the string theory R to 1/R flip-over.

A thought! The Big Bang interpretation assumes an unequivocal "time forward" direction for the whole universe, ie, nothing but nothing moves in the year 2017 to 2000 direction. OK, our parish seems to be in a tsunami of "time forward" motion. But, this may just be a mass action effect. Everthing is made of waves and every wave has a hurry-up-the-passage-of-time and a slow-down-the-passage-of-time part in its cycle that produces a typical sine wave pattern. Because we see no single slow-down-the-passage-of-time amplitude that is actually large enough to reverse the local passage of time current (rather than just retard it) we don't perceive that this is even possible. However, the big bang "moment" may just be a particular point in the cycle of the largest ampliude waves and, equally, there may be a parish (deep intergalactic voids) where, if we could instantaneously transport our laboratories, we might be tempted into interpreting that we are in a steady state universe, with matter being constantly "created" (where virtual pair creation leads to the occasional persistence of rare hydrogen atoms).

Oscillating between future and past

I am beginning to form the idea that the atomic nucleus is actually a virtual "window" that connects us with the past. What follows is speculative – be warned. Although the physical location of the "antiversal" waves may be outside the electron shell, we get the illusion that they are within. Anything that has mass is expressing a property that is receding from "us" at relativistic volocities. Now, lets think about that. I have already suggested that an electron is the product of a sort of dumbell oscillation of two photons with precisely complementary properties (combined speed of approach – SoL – and frequency). When it is precisely "right" the two photons cease to travel, outwards and unimpeded, into deep space and form enough complementary expanding/contracting spheres of spatial extent to remain in stable oscillating balance for long periods (very long half life). The dumbell idea is a convenient starting point BUT it is really two, more or less, concentric (expanding/contracting) spatial spheres. As Photon A contracts to Planck size it is instantaneously receeding at the SoL and looks point like and thus particulate. As it expands it appears enveloping and the sphere seems to envelop us, manifest by a magnetic field that is, at its widest radius, not moving relative to the point at which the epicentre where the photon seems to have disappeared "down the plug hole". This only accounts for 50% of the electric charge because Photon B then appears across the "rectifying" horizon to form the complementary "contracting" sphere to complete the sawtooth pattern of the electron. We do not, then, "see" the complementary electron crossover point where photon A reaches Planck size, inverts from contraction to expansion (which we later envisage as time vs distance) and "reflects" out from the centre, inverted in charge.

Black holes! A few thoughts. At the event horizon of a black hole time slows down dramatically – even stops. We accept that. Black holes evaporate – smaller ones "fast" and larger ones "slowly". But what does this mean if the evaporation is occurring at the local (event horizon) time rather than our (sat on the surface of mother earth) time? Spagettification is an accepted inevitability as we approach a black hole. Formed matter is pulverised as it approaches the event horizon and – I suggest – could be pulverised to free photons. Part of Hawkings thesis was that electron-positron-pairs form at the event horizon and segregate (electrically) across the horizon (electrons to the "outside" and positrons to the "inside"). High energy photons may be the generators of abundant electron-positron-pairs. It is accepted that positrons act like electrons "moving" backwards in time. The implication of that is that the positrons will appear – in our past – at the event horizon. However, that horizon will also be "outside" the event horizon. Because it's in the past – form our perspective – it will "look" like an explosion into the future rather than an aggregation of matter ongoing into the past. It is already suspected that entanglement is linked to mass. I have suggested that mass may be the local imbalance of a sum zero electrical charge (universe from nothing) but, just as a non-ionised atom has, from a distance, zero charge, the fact remains that as two electron shells get very close the local imbalance of charge creates immense electrostatic repulsion (think of hard diamonds). Now, we also suspect that galaxies consist not only of well defined and visible concentrations of matter but also a more indistinct "halo" of dark matter. Could that dark matter be the manifestation of an anti-verse of positronic derived anti-matter? Several arguments have led me to suggest that a balanced antiverse – seen from the "inside" of an event horizon may act very much like a mirror-image of our visible universe but only if we could transpose ourselves to that parish. In deep intergalactic space we have a region where magnetic expansion reaches its energetic limits and then interacts with the same (energy balancing) antiversal magnetic expansion to form a very low (spontaneous) energy parish. It is close to zero energy and only rarely breaks this zero energy symmetry. For us, because they are evenly painted across every cubic metre of the universe, these occasional deviations from abolute (zero-energy balance) look like the echo of a "big bang". (NEEDS FURTHER THOUGHT)

An extension and inference of the last point is that "now" is immediately adjacent to the past and to the future in any entangled system. The perspective of what we are looking at is inverted when, for instance the immediate past is viewed from the immediate future – "universal" and "antiversal" perspectives. Now, this, I iinfer, is happening at the cosmological scale where the big bang is swallowed up by the a sort of big crunch. Our immediate assumption is that the big cruch looks like a final implosive gasp that we would be able to see. However, it would the gradual addition of new black holes that, to us, seem to be massive distances apart.

Now, just as such a huge cosmological system "swallows its tail" so, much smaller entangled systems probably do the same. So, let's look at the slit lamp experiments again. We must assume these are possibly, even probably, in an entangled time loop system. We, as observers, are utterly convinced that the origin (a past event) and the outcome (a future consequence) cannot influence each other except by setting precise initial conditions or calculating back to guage how the outcome originated. However, the universe is made of "two sided dice" who's faces always balance each other exactly – a total zero energy system – but local "transient borrowing" can lead to an apparently totally random system when we only look at the "topside" of the dice. So, in the slit lamp experiment, the magnetic environment of the origin of the photon is, from the antiversal perspective, the electronic (tiny "particle") component of the the apparent photon (and of course, vice versa). It is one system. The outcome dictates certain properties of the origin. The "cosmic sensor" will not allow imbalenced (that is – non sum-zero-energy) systems to emerge. Every universal deviation from zero must be balanced by an opposite (potentially cancelling) antiversal deviation. We have formed the belief that objects in the future can influence objects in the past. However, the past is probably just a different place separated by a SoL restriction in apparent communication. But, entanglement shows us how past and present can influence each other but only where elements are in an uncommitted dualistic state. Once committed (either by an "event" in the past or in the future) they commit to one state or the other. If we look at the past as being just a space separated "place" than here can commit over there and overthere can commit here but both can remain in a dualistic uncommited state untill this commitment is made. Matter is overwhelmingly in the committed state and creates a mass action belief that the future cannot affect the past.

In this vein, it is worth remarking that quantum physics is both intensely logical and it relies on many of the principles and rules learned in classical physics. But, yet, "no one understands quantum physics". I suspect that what we learn from this statement is that there is some component in quantum physics that defies the logic of classical physics and common (sense) experience. We are, in all probability, engaging a hidden assumption: or, perhaps, a "not so hidden" assumption. We assume that we "know for sure" that a future event cannot "alter" a past event. And this might be our problem. In the "world" of entanglement, where mirror images of particles are common (eg, electron-positron pairs – where a positron acts like an electron "travelling backwards in time") we may simply be seeing a sort of "cosmic censor" where, quantum principles outline how miriad different outcomes could branch from one another (the "many worlds" conjecture) but, it may be that a reality check of the outcome feeding back to the origin enables a wavefunction to collapse into a mat(t)erial system. This would ensure that the metaphorical "face up dice" are exactly matched by the "face down dice". So, it could be that our conceptual problem is our refusal to consider that the future can affect the past and this is our "hidden assumption". Any cause and effect manifestation that we observe courtesy of matter (mostly sensed through electron shell interactions) may be part of a closed temporal-loop-system that censors any deviation from absolute balance. We can tolerate any random distribution of all the "face up dice" as long as the "face down dice" (hidden to our common experience) are an exact balance that enforces a sum zero – universe from nothing – principle.

Some thoughts on "dancing" ("knotted") electron pairs. This diagram gives some interesting perspective.


So, could a photon be a cycle of creation then annihilation of space (creation-annihilation-creation-annihilation-creation-annihilation-etc)? But that cycle would be, somehow, collapsing space (viewed from a "forward in time" perspective) creating apparent point negative charge and expanding space (again viewed from a "forward in time" perspective) that is perceived as an encompassing magnetic "charge" (giving rise to magnetic field).

Here is an interesting perspective

"The" big bang represents a point of extremely improbable high (photonic) energy from which we observe the gradual emergence of structure (through coalescence) into a retinue of increasingly ordered structures. The temptation is to see entropy and disorder as synonymous physical properties; entropy is the antagonist of order but order is an emergent property only sustainable through energy flows. Order is absent in the high energy radiation of the big bang and the infra-red homogenisation typical of deep intergalactic space. We can regard life (say, for example, a human population with all its individual physiological mechanisms, its societal structure and the accumulated information, understanding and technological manipulation that this society creates) as the capture of highly and improbaby concentrated energy that is used to create highly and improbable structural order, by prematurely slinging out much more probable and homogenised energy (much less useful energy – speeding up the temporal decay of high to low energy gradients) then we delay the degradation of "order into disorder" and form some semblance of protracted persistence. Life has enhanced this by adding reproduction as individuals perish long before a specie does. It is a form of regeneration through which societal gains can be preserved.

We are led to believe that, in deep intergalactic space – far from there being "nothing" – there is a broiling frothy creation of "particles" and "antiparticles". The parentheses point out that a similar photon/"anti-photon" (however we can envisage something that would encompass an anti-photon) process may be occurring. Two otherwise identical photons 180 degrees out of phase could could fulfil the photon/anti-photon principle. These particles/antiparticles last just evanescently before they "annihilate" each other (return to individual photons really rather than turn back to nothing. The return back to nothing can occur by a photon interacting with its 180 degree our of phase "mirror" photon. However, such annihilation, although it is highly probable, may not occur inevitably. I think that there is a sace for saying that occasional circumstances allow for virtual pair persistence in a "rectifying " circumstance and this leads on to the generation then coalescence of particles into matter, galaxies and thence back to black hole hoizons. This "ordered" and "persistent" matter would represent but the tiniest (minisculist) fraction of all photonic activity in the universe. We perceive the heavely firmament as being dominated by islands of matter. In reality, this matter might be but the most miniscule manifestation of all that is going on. "Is going on" begs that point that, in deep intergalatic space, time probably has little meaning - if any. On the edge of a black hole time stands still. If a "big bang" scenario is just the temporal reverse of coalescing black holes and black holes are just the plug holes leading down to a "big bang" than we have a loop time scenario where time – at the event horizon – stands still. We would have a picture, then, of a collapsing expanding "universe" with time "stopped" at both the event horizon and in deep intergalact space. Then if we consider that possible advantage of saying the big bang appears to be the dispersion of radiation throughout the cosmos and coalescing black holes the dissapearance "down the plughole" back to the big bang, we have a counterflow scenario like that in Figure 15 above.

Where is the shadowy antiverse?

So! What evidence is there for a shadowy anti-verse that is in intimate "contact" (?entanglement) with our immediate universe. Well, there is dark matter for a start. It appears to be "local" but surrounding rather than immediately adjacent to visible matter; and some hysteresis of average position is often observed. Then there is the shadowy universe of neutrinos. Plain electrons, muon electrons and tau electrons (with their antimatter partners) have a "reflection" of simple, muon and tau neutrinos (with their anti-matter partners). As I have pointed out earlier, there is a suggestion that the decay of tau and muon neutrinos into lower energy neutrinos may, possibly, be interpreted as decay "starting" at what we regard as the arrival point rather than the source point and reaching maximal decay at the emission point. This suggests a temporal/place inversion. By place inversion I am implying "source" "target" inversion from the anti-verse's perspective.

A pendulum analogy

Look at this diagram

What it shows are two contra-oscillating pendula. Let's call them "entangled" – inasmuch as – whatever the (currently) right hand pendulum does, the (currently) left hand pendulum also does but in a perfectly mirrored trajectory. At the zenith of its travel, the potential energy is mfh (where m is the mass of the pendulum, f is the restoring force – in practice, gravity (g) is often the restoring force – and h is the height from the nadir to the zenith of the swing). What we can now see is that the system has twice 1/2mv2 kinetic energy at the cross-over point (where v is the instantaneous velocity at cross-over). A collision of the pendula at this point could – potentially – lead to the total release of the stored kinetic energy into "pure" (radiative) energy. We can extrapolate this analogy to two contra-oscillating magnetic fields one of which starts on the left in "positive-time", shrinks to zero (Planck) size at the cross-over point then "expands" in "negative-time" – and vice versa, of course, for the second [entangled] magnetic field. Let's currently leave the meaning of negative-time – but, note, it is a characteristic feature of a sine wave where time slows then speeds up alternately in each cycle and negative time flow would be particularly apparent if we happened to be travelling along at the same speed as the progressing sine wave. So, the analogy with two contra-oscillating photons, as a description of an electron/magnetic field system, is now – I think – a little stronger. There are experiments where two photons can be "entangled" in this fashion and it appears, in one experiment, to require very particular conditions, one of which is a very low temperature and a catalytic atom. This would suggest that the extrapolation of a two (electron) to three (electron) muonic system of "photon-dances" could give rise to more energetic fermions (this could be extrapolated to tau – ?5 photon – electrons; and even onwards, to ever more energetic – and thus ever more improbable – fermions). The point electric charge is only "apparent" as the electron pairs move "away" from the observer through the zero (Planck) point. This point size, below a minimum (Planck) size, is probably virtual. It appears to us as though the collapsing magnetic field has disappeared down the "rabbit hole" but it has simply passed through the Planck point to become an expanding magnetic field that is added, quantum fashion, to our enveloping magnetosphere (effectively space itself). The apparent rectification of the two contracting photons creates a sawtooth electron made from the negative phase of two photons (negative representing "contracting"). Should you have not already have made this inference, if the contra-oscillating magnetic field disappears down the "rabbit hole" at the speed of light, the energy of the two photon electron system is mc2 where v becomes c (the speed of light). The mass is now directly related to the magneto-electric restoring force – by analogy with the potential energy at the zenith of the pendular movement. Gravity, by analogy, might be the subtle result of being closer to the negative charge than the antiversal positive charge (analogous to chemistry's Van der Waals forces). At large distances (space-times), the electromagnetic potentials appear to be exactly balanced with zero-sum overall potential energy.

It is interesting that the language is about the speed of light, not the velocity of light. Should we regard the constancy of the speed of light to be a reflection of the velocity of light at the point of docking/undocking into electron shells then the light we see is released (undocks) from fermion orbitals, of some form or another, and joins a receiving (docking) fermion orbital. That is how we detect its presence. A photonic packet has to be just right at release and just right at absorption to join and constitute an observable system; the light wave connects origin and destination into a system and is subject to SoL constraints. As we accelerate one particle of a system pair of particles (entangled? pair) we notice that, as the separating velocity increases, so the mass of the receding particle appears to ramp up exponentially as it approaches recession at the speed of light. Should the model of a two photon electron be correct, then we have a situation where each one of the photon pairs has an expanding and a contracting magnetic sphere (the fully expanded field probably gives rise to space itself and we can envision that stuffing more oscillating photon pairs into a potential space may result in a cumulatively larger volume of space). It is tempting to regard this oscillating system rather like the pendulum, where the closing velocity at cross-over is twice v. That would mean, on current understanding, that the negatively charged rectified state (electron) cannot "dock" with the positively charged rectified state (positron). Rather like neutrinos, we might expect the "antiversal" fermion to be able to pass through countless miles of lead without interacting with the "universal" matter (we are largely talking about the electron shell here as the immediate manifestation of matter). So that is, perhaps, what neutrinos are – "antiversal" positrons/electrons (literally – overwhelmingly positrons). As with any sinusoidal oscillation there will be a "time" retarded and "time" advanced phase in the oscillation. Here, this provides a direct link to a retarded/advanced position that, in turn, gives rise to a false illusion that time is a vector that is separate and independant from position. What we ("universal" side of the "rectification") see is from the the time advanced portion of the oscillation and we are looking "back" towards the time retarded portion of the oscillation. And that probably looks like an enveloping and ghostly (remember neutrinos) cloud of "dark matter". However, at the "now point" of crossover, the universal electrons will lie Planck distance apart from the antiversal positrons. By the time we register the "now" event, it will be well in our past (a different position subtended into the past). Electrons/positrons are point like particles (Planck sized?) representing the "down the rabbit hole" contraction of an alternately expanding then contracting pair of magnetospheres. The superluminal crossover probably provides the rectification mechanism that gives rise to a sawtooth fermion "fabricated" out of two contra-oscillating photons. So, except in strange conditions, we see dominantly electrons form the "universal" side and, should we be capable of translocating to the "antiversal" side, we would only see positrons (but they would seem identical to an electron seen on the "universal" side). I am progressively warming to this set of ideas. However, this is wrong as it stands - I have not figured in the substantial "speed" of electrons around an atom. This will all change but it is a start and exposes the simplicity of the mc2 equivalence of mass; and the idea that neutrinos are "antiversal" electrons/positrons needs much more analysis.

More on this theme. A way around this theme might be that – indeed – the universe and antiverse are mirror imaged. "Time" (I suspect all time will be reducible to distance) is circular. For "volume" (distance cubed) this could be envisaged as matter being generated by quantum uncertainty throughout the vastness of space (exemplified by conditions like those that caricature deep intergalactic space). It is "generated" in a balanced and mirrored manner and, when rectification conditions occur,it gradually coalesces (hydrogen to helium to iron to uranium to neutron stars to black holes on both the the universal and antiversal sides. At the point of rectification, "time" apparently reverses, so that we (on the universal side) sense that the antiversal side is running from condensed to diffuse in the reversed manner. But that is simply a distance thing, where to antiverse appears to us to be diffusing into the past. (This needs deeper explanation - I think I see it but the words are not well formed.) The universal side "sees" the antiversal side as a virtual image that appears to be within the individual atomic electron shells. Due to a speed of light limit to electron shell docking/undocking, anything light wave moving faster (OR SLOWER) fails to interact with the electron shell. Contrariwise, the antiversal perspective is likewise mirrored. Entropy is running in the reverse (time) direction in the two BUT the universal and antiversal perspective leaves the view from each side as appearing to run in a highly improbably compaction of energy to a highly dispersed distribution of energy. The atomic nuclei of the universes atoms a virtual image of positron shells on the antiversal side and the atomic nucleuses of the antiversal side are a virtual image of the electon shells on the universal side. We would booth see them as running in the same highly concentrated to highly dispersed manner. The one place where the collapsing magnetic fields pass each other at crossover of the field pairs is where electrons are "orbiting" the atomic nucleus at a very substantial proportion of the SoL. Add "spin" into that and the velocity of approach and regression of universal fermions and antiversal fermions immediately near crossover should be twice the SoL. That is, they cannot dock or undock with one another. Their local "presence" is real but they are ghostly particles with respect to each other. At a distance, the speed of the electron's monopole appears to be averagely static with respect to our measuring devices. I need to think through how this affects antiversal positrons (which may manifest as neutrinos and why, then, these are moving near the SoL. That could be a condition of them being close to discernable under unusual conditions (vs never discernable under "observer" static conditions).

So how do you (accusatory I) account for free neutrons and free protons? (That is, those nuclear components "unbound" by electron shells.) Need to think that through closely BUT free atomic nuclei are a property associated with very high temperatures - a broiling froth of hot electrons is not far away.

So how does time "emerge"? This is the way I am inclining. Let's just talk of electrons for the moment. These are formed by interacting photons that "whizz back and forth from Universe to antiverse "sides" (same electrons and positrons occupy the same volume space but unable to interact as they photons cannot dock unless in precise trajectories and speeds (velocities). So, antiversal "matter" is ghostly and largely unobservable (unable to interact with matter). This forms the rectification process that leads to an entangled pair of photons across the crossover point. Spacetime co-ordinates are "made" from position (within the enveloping magnetic swarm-field - universal) but has an entangled antiversal component (the other half of the rectified photon pair). These can be (are) separate positions EXCEPT at the point of immediate crossover. Once we have a swarm of entangled photon pairs, we have a myriad individual "nows" (crossovers) that inevitably look like points in the past once sensed by adjacent "nows". The greater the swarm, the greater is the antiversal distance – and this equates to us universal creatures as time rather than distance. I think this works – just about.

A thought on the "speed of light": we characteristically think about the speed of light as a tiny photonic "space bullet" plough its way from point A to point B at the SoL. However, if the point is right that entry into a electron orbital system and egress from it can only occur at the SoL then we can have two separated systems travelling away from each other where the light appears to leve the source at the SoL and yet still arrive at its destination at the SoL. What happens to accommodate this conundrum? Well the wavelength of the light from source to destination is what changes. If the destination is moving away, the emitted light packet is red shifted (it is not able to transfer as much energy). Contrariwise, if they are converging then emitted light packet is blue shifted and it is able to transfer a lot more energy. This suggests to me that an umbilical connection, through light, is real. The source and destination are never separated by this umbilical. Cause and effect are probably parochial constraints that we notice. Take, though, the combined universal/antiversal entanglement into account and the temporal flow is reversed for one half and cause and effect are also reversed but hidden within the ghostly antiverse (and that fits well with the decay of tau and muon neutrinos "starting" at the destination and decaying towards palin neutrinos at the source (as we see it).

I have recently seen a suggestion that the big bang has an identical, mirror image, "anti"-universe and this idea accounts for many of the conundrums we see in a straight "time-forward" perspective. As I see it, every element of the cosmos is "painted" on a "photon" created universe where various degrees of compaction can occur. So from electrons (two "dancing" photons, through three, five and even seven or more dancing/entangled photons, all increasingly improbable and increasingly evanescent in our parish) to quarks and baryonic matter, neutrons, neutron stars through to black holes all representing increasingly wound up/compacted "strings" of light (analogy intended). Now my vision is that the mirroring occurs at every level; an electron has a mirror image "antiversal" positron; composite hydrogen atoms have a mirror image antiversal antihydrogen; a neutron star has an antiversal neutron star. The apparent time flow from within the anti-universe would appear the same as in the universe but, viewed (if it could be easily observed) from the universal side, the time flow would appear backwards to us. In a way, this can be compared to two strings along which a constricitng ring can be slid as in this diagram:

Remember that the antiverse and the universe are (in my vision) superimposed over one another, occupying – pretty much – the same volume of space both at the most expanded and most constricted parts (coincident spatial [magneto]spheres). But, because of the apparent rectification they interact weakly if at all (possibly brought about because they are "moving" too fast (even too slow?) relative to each other to be able to interact (universe with antiverse) with each other and dock into an "electron" entity). The antiversal distance is perceived, from a universe perspective, as time (and likewise universal distance is perceived as time in the antiverse). So, we have a structure in which isolated electrons are wound up only slightly and neutron stars are wound up "in extremis". The universal/antiversal depth is small for an electron but extremely deep for a neutron star. I think this works quite well and better that the image of a mirror image universe occupying very distant spatial and temporal locations. Remember, also, that once the photonic wave reaches a minima (? equivalent to a "Planck size") it "reflects" 180 degrees out of phase "through" this "Planck point" and out again. So it's a "progressive" concentric constriction towards a minimum, "passes through" the minimum then back out in a concentric expansion. As the overall "concentricism" on a universal scale is virtually in the same space, the only place for "movement" is at very small distances where a "travel" into the "Planck point" and out again may involve a small apparent movement (as suggested in the diagram and it may include rotational "movement") from "left" to "right" and vice versa. This might be enough to generate an apparent superluminal velocity difference that results in universal matter being unable to interact with antiversal antimatter. It is only in statistically rare instances, where circumstances conspire to get the odd photon element into a velocity frame close to the SoL, that interactions can take place (as, for example, in a neutrino detector tank). Where positrons are clearly "visible" in the universe's space-time, they have formed in the universal velocity frame. If they form in the antiversal velocity frame, then they look like neutrinos. If we go back to Fig 10 (earlier in this script), we can imagine contra–rotating pairs of expanding/constricting photonic spatial spheres (perhaps constituted from multiple spatial discs); at full expansion, they are equatorially centred on the toric funnel (expanded to billions of light years distance for the largest) and at these extremes, time flow, that only becomes apparent in the toric funnel, is non-existant. That's my take on it.

An aside: falling into a black hole.

Perhaps I am being thick and missing something important but is the idea of falling "comfortably" into a black hole and coming out intact (structure in = structure out) somewhat naive? If I fell onto an asteroid, the impact would be gentle and I might well bounce: fall on to the moon from 10 metres and I'd probably be able to comfortably survive the event: fall onto the surface of a neutron star and I would be flattened to a film thinner than gold leaf. So, why is it so different if I fell into (onto) the event horizon of a black hole? Why would I be able to survive in my current form? Why should the sequence of progressive compactification suddenly change when passing "through" the funnel of a rotating black hole (the hydrogen to helium to oxygen to iron to uranium to neutron star sequence - with intervening steps). If it does suddenly change then does this indicate compactification is conplete and will now "reverse" with the progressive "evaporation" back into pure photons. Is the event horizon effectively a dense mass that is just as or more destructive than the surface of a neutron star? Because it is conceived as a "hole" it makes us comfortable with the idea that we might fall (intact) through the event horizon into the hole. Could it be that I would be "pulverised" to pure photons that, in Hawking radiation style, are emitted over the full course of 13.7 bn years (for time at the event horizon comes to an effective halt - falling in at 100 years post big bang will seem little different, in that parish, to falling in 13.7 bn years later. Perhaps the hole is a unobtainable mirage or virtual entity and I would fall no further than the event horizon. The singularity might well be a virtual entity. Is this worth thinking about this perspective.

Aside: atomic clocks

We talk of developing ever more accurate atomic clocks. Would we not be better talking about ever more stable oscillators? The fact that we use these oscillators for establishing a reliable time reference for use around our immediate (parochial) environments is, naturally, a useful application of incredibly accurate oscillators. "Accurate oscillators" implies that, when two or more identical oscillators are placed "side by side" they will oscillate at virtually identical frequencies – even after long periods of use the number of oscillatory cycles will be the same in all oscillators. Using this to measure time is, naturally, a useful application for us. But, the oscillatory frequency will be different in different locations (e.g., at sea level, below ground, on a mountain top or in outer space). So, for example, when put side by side on a mountain top, they will continue to run at "identical" rates. But when we separate them, say, one at sea level and one on a mountain top, then they will oscillate at different rates, with the lower oscillator oscillating at a very slightly lower frequency than the higher oscillator. Calling them "clocks" encourages us to regard time as an absolute reference or phenomenon.

Aside: wave and particle nature light

Thinks: the wavelike properties of light will occur in the magnetic (expanding magnetosphere) phase of the oscillating wave. The particulate properties of light will correspond to the Constricting (disappearing) part of the spatial expansion/constriction wave. There is a phase change from -ve constriction to +ve expansion either side of the zero size "point". Effectively, the negative phase has a slight advance into the future and the positive side a slight retardation towards the past. It is this tiny "point" in the size transition that confers particle like properties. It is the larger higher amplitude magnetic expansion that confers wave like properties.

The flow of time

(See – our descriptive vocabulary gives us clues straight away.) We all know, instinctively, that time cannot be turned backwards. The breaking of this rules is inconceivable from our experience. But, imagine a water analogy. Imagine that we are situated in a place where where we are in a torrent of flow - say for example the Niagara river. It is inconceivable that, in the strongest flows, we'd be able to swim fast enough to get out of this "forward" flow or ever eperience flowing backwards. However, how did this flow get there in the first place? The surface water of our oceans evaporated, swept inland on high altitude winds, fell on the hills and then accumilated in our rivers, some of which ended up in the Niagara. It's a cycle and if your parish is too big and too hard to escape from (think rockets and Einstein and time "travel") then you'll never experience slowed, let alone reversed, time. Now, if the universe is constituted from precisely zero energy (by implication that's zero improbability and 100% probability) but has fundamental uncertainty at base (balanced positive and negative probabilities occurring "by chance"), then there will be net positive and negative flows (as oceans, rain, rivers, Niagara). In universal terms – there is net zero energy (improbability). It's just the parish that makes us think that time is irreversible (and that energy flows from "the big bang" to today).

So, out in deep intergalactic space (seen by us as the most distantly interconnected electron shells – connected at both the "origin" and "arrival" locations at the SoL) "time" (distance) is "increasing" (expanding) faster than the intensely wound up photons (spatial waves) that are incorporated into matter. However, a photon in deep intergalactic space should see itself as timeless/unmoving. So the real effect is that matter is "taking a dive" into the past (time/compaction) – and as noted earlier – this is rather like gravity. This dive into time/compaction is truncated when matter and antimatter "annihilate" (really, release all their photons from their wound up state) and "send" all their photonic energy back to deep intergalactic space. What needs to be sorted out is "where is the hidden antiversal matter dispersion". Neutrinos might be part of the solution.

That leads to more clues. I have already suggested that neutrinos "travel backwards" in time (whatever that means). So, neutrino decay "starts" at the apparent arrival point (explaining, perhaps, the impression that neutrinos change flavour during "flight"; so tau decay "begins" at what we believe is the arrival point and it progressively "decays" – but time reversed – into electron neutrinos at what we consider to be the source. So, at source, they are far more likely to be electron neutrinos than the other flavours (muons/taus).

Then we have to consider what leads to the occasional rectification of electron/positron pairs that are spontaneously generated in transient quantal foam fashion. Well, Hawking radiation points out that this is likely to happen at the event horizon of black holes. But, if we go back to the inference that, what we see as negative charge is created by collapsing space and positive charge by expanding space (electrons being the rectified manifestation of two entwined photons that are collapsing/expanding synchronously – and, of course, it creates an entwined positron that persists in the rectified "antiverse" and the expansion/contraction there is "apparently" (take the literal meaning here) the inversion of the universal perspective. Now, gravity is "pulling" towards contracting space, so it is probably differentially easy for electrons to sink "down the gravitational plughole" than it is for positrons to do the same. This might suggest that, when we finally manage to observe it, gravity might tend to repel positrons (physicists are trying to establish this nature of this behaviour). This may constitute a progressively "aggressive" rectification as we approach an event horizon. So positrons of spontaneously generated electron/positron pairs are repelled by gravitational "pull" (to form white holes) and electrons retained by it (black holes).

In the view shown in the diagram below, all systems from atoms to black/white holes are compacted – the earliest stages of compaction are evident in a hydrogen atom and hyper-extreme compaction is found in a black/white hole. The universe's volume is mapped out by the sum of all "magnetospheres". At the periphery of this arena, the time forward and time backward properties "disappear" – they become timeless in this "location" (their confluence). The disappearing/diving photon pair components form electrons ("negatrons" and positrons) reach the minima of electon orbitals then "expand out" in reverse (mirrored) time. What we see as an electron is a rectified blur of just recessions. They (the negatronic and positronic rings) are concentric in focus – and not in (necessarily) separated places. These rings ("spheres") are probably, compared to cosmic scales, very close together BUT, because the positronic ring is temporally earlier than the negatronic ring, it appears to us to lie within an electron ring. It gives the illusion of a focused, set of almost point-like entities in the central nucleus when they are part of the opposite time direction to the extra-atomic space we observe; its perspective is dominated by the surrounding "magnetosphere". Remember, I have suggested that an electron is a pair of "oscillating" photons in which the electric component is "created" by the disappearance (at SoL speed) of contracting phases of this photon-pair-oscillation that is effectively rectified on either temporal side. The rectified magnetic component forms the spatial arena in which the electron particle (an effect created by the contracting photon wave components "disappearing at the SoL" – either in a forward or backward time illusion). I am thinking that the SoL may be set by the interaction of the oppositely charged electrons (negatrons and positrons). Something, some property of their "interactability" (the formation of an entangled system), must dictate this "speed" – beyond which photons cannot join or escape electrons and, concequently, give rise to the "antiversal" nuclear particles whose behaviours they enable. I think that there is potential "meat" in this incipient view. The photon pair behaviour may give a clear 180 degree phase shift of forward and backward time; this may become more complicated in triplet photon dances (muons?) to a threesome or more when there are greater numbers of photon dancers (5, 7, 11 and so on). These increasing "prime" number "dancers" should become increasingly (exponentially?) more improbable (rare) and energetic (massive). They should only exist/persist in areas of greater and greater compaction.

So what features suggest this shadowly world of the anti-verse? Well:

The natural assumption, when thinking of a (time) cyclical universe, is to imagine it expands from the "big bang" in a forward time "motion", gradually draws to a halt in this expansion and then (in forward time) gets "drawn" back to a big crunch where it can then (in forward time again) explode once again as a big bang. This assumption of a "time forward" restriction leads to an eternally collapsing expanding concept.

However, let's think about what happens as matter coalesces (photons get wound up progressively tighter). It goes electrons/positron pairs (that somehow get rectified and separated to persist), hydrogen, then helium then lithium then a sequence leading through iron then uranium then neutron stars and eventually "black holes". In this "journey", matter instability results in a progressive release of the wound up photons (fusion in stars, supernova explosions then black hole evaporation) till all this (balanced) borrowed energy (improbability) is set on course to reunite with its counterpart "lender" (positive and negative energy are reunited – whatever it is that represents negative energy). So, looking at our parish, sunlight (starlight) is released in copious quantities and sent off radially into the deep cosmos. Some of it (a very small proportion) channels its way through planetary atmospheres and atomic matter to facilitate eddies of order (eg, living organisms). However, the vast majority just heads off – unimpeded – into deep intergalactic space and a progressive "decay" to lower and lower wavelength photons. By the time it reaches the deepest voids of intergalactic space, it contains little more than low wavelength photons typical of a 2.7 degree Kelvin "black body" radiation. It is here that true annihilation of energy is more likely (eg, annihilation as evidenced in the dark bands of photon interference patterns, where out of phase photons cancel each others' energy). Here, the copious influx of very low frequency photons, in myriad phases and covering a limited range of frequencies, could well add up to the ultimate "energy loan" repayments for loans that allowed matter to evolve in the first place. So, in this (true) annihilation, spacial expansion (the sigma-summation of all magnetic spherical expansions) ceases to exist (expand) – and there are no photons with enough energy to interact with matter. So, there can no longer be any "source/destination" handshakes that lead to both entanglement and to the apparent "speed of light" limit. ("Source/destination" in parentheses because it depends on your universal or antiversal view of which is which). Note that entangled handshakes by light can be achieved either in the forward or backward time "direction". A photon sees no passage of time when "travelling" at the speed of light. We can interpret it as sending the entanglement message "backwards in time" from the destination to the source rather than instantaneous communication across space – the latter confuses us as it is "anti-Einsteinian". In this view, antiversal matter shadows universal matter rather than being spread evenly throughout the cosmos. As above, we have evidence that this shadowy, poorly interacting matter exists "close" to us. Antiversal matter (made of positron/anti-proton baryons) sits "close" to universal matter ("negatron"-proton matter) but looks like something different when viewed from one side or the other of the divide.

In this scenario, time is the "illusion" created by a "dive" into greater and greater photon compaction, from electron-positron pairs to neutron stars (and beyond) and this is counterbalanced by antiversal mirroring. Time only appears to "race" in our parish (it slows to a standstill at a BH event horizon). Ultimately time is an illusion created out of balanced positive/negative energy rectification near areas of deep photon compaction (photonic dances). It is rather like a CD or DVD where most play it forwards to enjoy and understand it but the contained information remains fully preserved on the disk surface. It only takes on a time flow because we play it in a "forward" direction.

The fractal nature of magnetic fields?

...... or should I say "the fractal nature of myriad magnetospheres?" So, it is clearer to me that there are, quite probably, myriad magnetospheres ranging from almost Planckian smallness to pan-universal gigantiveness. It is the latter that could "create" space itself and act as the backdrop canvas on which all the lesser (fractal) magnetospheres are "drawn". Remember, in my interpretation, the size maxima of each of these magnetospheres lies at the point of "stillness" between the cycle "going" from forward to backward time (and vice versa depending on your universal or anti-versal perspective). The smaller magnetospheres will act like sine waves where the backward time and forward time componenets end up looking like a repeating cycle of slowing "progession" followed by a hastening of "progression". Each of these cycles will have a corresponding size minima where the photonic wave goes from large to small, inverts and expands out again. This crossover point seems to us "particulate" (electronic vs magnetic) and this particulate nature become apparent to us as matter in photon dances that generate the various lepton (electron family) flavours.

So, what is the significance of the very largest magnetosphere? Does it cycle repeatedly from a maximum to a minimum size? Or is just a positive and negative distraction from "time zero", where the whole "future" and the whole "past" of the largest magnetosphere crosses over? The other point of time crossover is at the electrospheric minima, the event horizon. This is probably the "point" at which the sum of all black holes crosses over to "all" white holes. However, we "see" (interpret) the latter as "the big bang" and convince ourselves there is only evidence for one infinitesimally small point of origin. So, why do we "see" multiple black holes scattered across the cosmos? Well, that could simply be a perspectival phenomenon. As pointed out earlier, time stands still at the event horizon of a black hole. If black holes formed very early in the "life" of the universe, then, from the perspective of these event horizons, the time and distance from adjacent primordial black holes is, respectively, much shorter and smaller than we interpret it. In extremis, the "core" of all black holes could be virtualy simultaneous and coincident when viewed from their primordial event horizons (at the crossover from time forward to time backward). We feel the need to interpret it as a cyclical universe where there is expansion, then collapse, then expansion then collapse ad infinitum in a time forward direction. But if the reversal of time is correct, then there is only one absolute (maximal) magnetosphere and one absolute (minimal) electrosphere crossover point (the ultimate event horizon) on which all the smaller ones are painted onto the canvas of the largest. I suspect that we sense the time backwards elements as neutrinos and dark matter – we are aware of their existence but they are shadowy and "poorly interacting" constituents as far as baryonic matter is concerned. Remember, light (and the particles it is able to create in various photon dances) can only interact with fermionic matter at the SoL when seen from the perspective of the local magnetosphere (ie, it enters and leaves atomic orbits at the SoL). For us this approximates to standing on the surface of mother earth and watching the fermion crossover points whizz by and around atomic nuclei. Anything that senses, touches, pushes, heats and etc is done either through photon interactions with these lepton crossover points or by the the leptons proximally encroaching on one another. Electron repulsion is probably the manifestation of the interaction of their corresponding and surrounding magnetospheres (annihilating=attraction, expanding/intruding=repulsion).

Photonic quanta

There are three points worth emphasising about discrete light quanta (photons). First, they are generally regarded as particles. Second, they each transfer a quantum packet of energy. Third, they represent a means by which this "particulate" quantum of discrete energy can be released at point A and reappear at point B after a time delay that is consistent with the speed (velocity) of light.

The particulate nature of a photon should alert us to what it is that we are observing. A photon may transmit itself as an alternating, relatively large and static magnetosphere that then exchanges this sphere (or disk) of potential energy into "forward" kinetic energy. As its magnetosphere collapses it temporarily becomes a travelling and tiny electrosphere. Then the cycle repeats as kinetic turns back to potential energy. So, it could "pump" its way along a "straight" trajectory, apparently at the "speed of light", leaving behind a "trail" of expanded (pumped) then contracted (deflated) magnetospheres. What we are seeing when we call it a particle is just this tiny electrospheric manifestation of the whole expanding-contracting photon. A photon is released from an electron shell of one atom whilst it is a tiny electrosphere (the rectified electrospheric manifestation of a dancing photon pair) and arrrives at its destination in the same state when it will become incorporated into the electron shell of a distant atom.

Now, the quantum of energy is, quite clearly, the stored energy that, before release, allowed the photon to form the electrospheric manifestation of a dancing photon pair (an electron). There is only a limited amount of energy that can be stored in an "orbiting" electron and a limited amount of energy that can be absorbed or released as it moves from one resonant shell to another. It is this resonant persistance in an electron shell that imparts the discreteness (integer-like property) of the energy packet. All possible intermediate times and distances may be possible but only the resonant ones become persistant. The rest are too transient to register.

I think that sufficiently covers these three points

How I think universe might be structured

I envisage that "time" appears to be running "forwards" and "backwards" side by side. Each of these representations takes a different view of the same process. Light/photons (ultimately just oscillating spatial expansions/contractions) become maximally unwound in deep intergalactic space (DIGS) to the extent that the most unwound component delineates "the limit (edge?) of space" itself. This limit (position A) is most likely the zenith of a linear oscillation because disc-like (two dimensional) and spherical (three-dimensional) configurations are compactions in themselves. Ultimately, at position B, the universe's constituent photons (spatial oscillations) become maximally compacted (and that implies that there are four, five, six and even more dimensional photonic oscillations in something like a neutron star or at the event horizon of a black hole.

Bottom right: the time loop view. The consitions of deep intergalactic space typify A, the time crossover of "to the future" and "to the past" (but remember, this condition pervades everwhere but has little impactual influence where matter is dense). Similarly point B is at the crossover of time forwards/backwards.

The top right view is drawn to emphasise that time forward and time backward are very close together. Dark matter and neutrinos are probably universal manifestations of this side by side antiversal component.

The extreme left hand view is just the time loop drawn out in a linear "Mercantile" like projection where A+ is like the western tip of Alaska and A- is like the eastern tip of Russia.

The view within the orange box suggests that the magnetosphereic "view" appears much larger than the electrospheric "view". This just emphasises the distortion created by a speed of light "sliding" of the central parts of the [A+ to B+] complex past the [A- to B-] complex. Remembering "à la Einstein", that – by the time A+ and A- come together and, similarly B+ and B- come together – the apparent slowing of the one against the other disappears. So the universal side will "see" the antiversal, magnetospheric, side as running faster than the universal, electrospheric, side AND vice verse (once again "à la Einstein"). (This perspective needs a lot of refinement yet.)

This adds substance to the "decay" of heavy leptons. Both the tau electrons (for example) and tau neutrinos will decay in the direction from matter compaction to deep intergalactic spatial unwinding. So, we should see tau neutrino decay "starting" at the measurement point and being complete towards what we have assumed is the source point. But it is the the start of decay from compacted to diffuse "beginning" at the point of detection and not at the – assumed – point of emission. (This perspective needs refinement.)

There are two "places" (conditions really) where the passage of time should be at a standstill. These are at the most diffuse "point" (representative of deep intergalactic space) and the most compact point (the crossover between black to white holes). So, immediately either side of a black hole event horizon and its corresponding white hole "event horzon" (representative of the "big bang"), little time (and thus distance) will have accrued between the BH and the WH event horizons. To us they seem almost "an eternity" apart but that is the result of the perspective that we take, here on mother earth, careering around the sun and the galactic centre. Similarly, virtually no time will have passed between every "apex" of multiple deep intergalactic spaces as we look into the voids of the deepest and most isolated intergalactic voids. The passage of time at these two points is, also, likely at a standstill. So the most diffuse and the most compact parts of our universe and NOT running at different "speeds", whereas we on earth appear to be near to 14 bn years after the big bang. So, we are – likely, and on average – a tad short of 14 bn years before we rejoin the event horizon of our galactic central black hole (even though – as the direct photon flies) it appears to be much closer in distance than 14bn light years away. And, I suspect, dark matter is time retarded in the "backwards" direction. Remember, a sine wave runs as apparently advanced time followed by retarded time with null ("zero") time shifts as the amplitude peaks and at the zero crossover point.

Time travel into the past.

(I think that) I have pointed out earlier that time travel into the past would necessitate the dissipation of an enormous amount of energy. It is easy to look at the earth and feel that it is attracting us by that nebulous force – gravity. However, the alternative "elevator" concept is equally valid. The centre of the earth is accelerating out to hit us (unless we are pinioned to the ground, when it turns into an elevator). So, work this out: how much energy would need to be dissipated to travel back a year into the past? Well, every second we are elevated at a rate of 1G (roughly 10 metres/sec/sec). Over a year that is an awful lot of pent up energy that has to be released on return to an earlier time. So, if there is all this much pent up energy what is stopping it simply dissipating for it must represent an enormous potential+kinetic energy store. Why does it not simply "collapse into pure radiation energy? Well, ask a fusion scientist. They know that matter (hydrogen in particular) represents an enormous energy store that, if unleashed easily, would let us discard just about all other primary sources of energy. Indeed, that is the focus of a great deal of attention at the moment. So what is holding this energy source back out of reach? Well, it's electron shells and Pauli's exclusion principle. That is why we can't easily force baryonic matter inside the electron shell complex. As soon as matter approaches matter, there is an enormous and mounting repulsion as the electron shells get closer and closer together. (This is NOT so when matter approaches antimatter, then the barriers to energy release melt.) So what does this tell us about the past? To get there, we have to breach the electron shell barrier and force our way "inside" the electron shell complex. BUT!! I have already alluded to the point that there may be no "inside" at these close to Planckian distance scales. The central nucleus may simply be a virtual place (remember "i" , the square root of -1 that works its way into quantum equations) and the actual location of the nucleus may be outside the electron shell. But, by implication, and fitting with the idea that gravity is simply "the past rushing out to fetch us back", this antiverse is in reverse time mode. The rectifier that keeps the universe and antiverse apart is the electron shell complex and Pauli's exclusion principle. So that fits nicely with the "apparent" absence of antimatter. Indeed, the shadowy world of very poorly interacting (with matter) neutrinos is likely a manifestation of this antiverse and (to our perspective) it may be "moving" backwards in time. Hence heavy neutrino decay starts within the earth and is complete by the time it reaches what we consider to be its source (eg., those neutrinos "emitted" by the sun). IF the concept I have proposed is valid, that dancing pairs of photons are what make up an electron, then we need to expand our view of what constitutes an electron beyond a point particle. Superficially, it appears to be a point particle with unitary negative charge. However, we must now consider it to be a system that is not too concerned with the direction of time travel except inasmuch as how that manifests at any particular parish of this system. However, the system comprises two photons, each of which is an oscillating spatial entity. Instantaneous it is a static spatial insinuation (expansion) with all energy in the form of potential energy, then its (positive) spatial potential energy (magnetic) collapses into a travelling (negative) potential energy (electric) that reaches a minimal amplitude at crossover when it begins to move back into expansion but "in reverse time". Each static (positive) maximum expansion leaves a increasingly ghostly impression at the static point then we see the particulate kinetic point like particle emmerge, ghost like then "solid", then ghost like again in what appears to be a pulsing particle travelling at the SoL. An electron forms (? - it's my belief) where two photons lock into a mutual dance and become rectified so that the negatrons stay on the universal side and the positrons stay on the antiversal side (not always though - we can engineer a deviance but it won't last long except under very special conditions). Time now becomes balanced. After an interval of (say) 10 minutes, the antiversal positron is located – in respect to the universal negatron – at a point that 10 minutes in the past (that's a long way when we are careering around the galactic centre). So, the system has to stay consistent and spread over large distance. (That needs thinking through - it's primitive in conception as yet). Note that there is a magnetic-approaching-enveloping manifestion of a photon and an electric-receding-particulate manifestion of the photon. These are reflected in their synchronised magnetic and electic waves.

Oh!! Say we could release all the photon pairs (and the triplets, quintuplets, septuplets etc) from their fermions (electrons, muons? and taus? and perhaps rarer forms) so that they decompactify. They would all "rush off" to diissipate throughout the wide universe, the majority of which is more like deep intergalactic space than foci of baryonic matter. Once there, their kinetic energy is tranmuting towards potential energy (note the red shift) and then to true annihilation (think 180 degree out of phase light waves cancelling each other out to "zilch, nothing, nihil"). Then we are back to the whole of the universe emerging from quantum uncertainty, condensing into hydrogen and helium atoms, then condensing gradually more to dust, stars and black holes. So, the big bang may just be a parochial state in this temporal cycle – as will be the spontaneous generation of particles from nothing. Could Fred Hoyle have been a bit right?

Negative space

One thing that has troubled me a lot is the negative space part of photonic spatial oscillation. However, it shouldn't. If we think of the whole of space being a large amplitutde and extremely long wavelength perturbation then we can see that smaller ripples (photonic oscillations) could travel through this perturbation alternately expanding (by a tiny amount) the overall volume of this universal space (really what might be termed a very large magnetic monopole) and then creating a sort of vacuum that reduces, by a tiny amount, overall universal space. It could be a sort of puff/suck wave that squeezes – toothpaste like – alternately into and out of the "virtual" tube; at each minima node the potential energy (the spatial/magnetic part) is swapped for kinetic energy (the particutate/electrical part). Of course, this kinetic energy is gained by moving the electrical-minima-nodes from point to point – evenly – along a "straight" line. This is largely analogous to the transmission of waves in our oceans. Each "photon" (a wave packet disturbance that has to be released from an atomic electron shell and subsequently be aborbed by the same for it to be an observable/measurable entity) carries a discrete wave packet that it transmits, without apparent loss, across multiple electrical-minima-nodes until it finally transfers its energy packet in a sort of kinetic collapse into a static potential energy state (eg, an atom). So that just leaves us with the problem of the first positive space "oscillation" that creates the vastness of universal space itself. Well, this could be the stacked up slow moving accumulation of myriad very long wavelegth oscillations so the overall amplitude increases by addition. We only need a single expanding and a single collapsing universal space – we don't need multiple universal expansions contractions. Indeed, at such long wavelengths, the next expansion/contraction would be, effectively, extra-universal.

Forbes article on possibility of closed universe

Ethan Siegel has just had an article published in forbes.com in which he discusses the possibility of a closed universe (ie, one where, by analogy, if you set out "South" from a hypothetical "North Pole" you would eventually turn up back at your starting point).

This diagram appeared in his article (click on the picture for the original image)

To my mind, what this is missing is that it is looking at the taurus as a three dimensional taurus representing just distance. It should be a a three distance dimension and one time dimension image, with time running through the taurus (vertial axis) and any two of the three distance dimensions represented in the fore aft and side to side axes. We need to leave off one dimension to be able to draw our diagram (just as the weighted membrane analogy to explain Einstinian gravity does). So anything above time zero (here) is [passage of] time reversed, and anything below time zero is [passage of] time "forward". Note time zero is [passage of] time stopped – as would occur at an event horizon, and also, as in the deepest of deepest intergalactic space. Essentially, that represents anything on the plane dividing top and bottom of the figure (multiple "nows"). Notably, if I am right about time being antiversal distance (the entangled "dark" half of photon dances), then the passage of time is affected by all three dimensions – as can be appreciated in the diagram. Also, the taurus is repeated for both large and small agglomerations of "matter" (and it's antimatter accompaniment if my ruse is correct). So, a black hole has a time reversed antiversal partner and an electron has a time reversed antiversal (entangled) partner. Once we get to the event horizon of a black hole, where the passage of time has effectively stopped, then we can imagine that this position "sees" itself as very close – if not congruent with – what we regard (using extrapolated logic) as the "big bang".

So, is this not just looking at the mirror image of the universe without it being a separate entity? Well, there are lots of clues to suggest not. Positrons behave as time reversed electrons when they interact with the universe. Neutrinos are, I suggest, the antiversal electron family "seen" in their natural antiversal environment. Dark matter is a strong hint that another unseen part of the universe is close by (like an enveloping cloud). For the simplest component (an electron), the rectified matter part of a photon pair that makes up an electron is mirrored by an oscillatory mirror image "located" (and similarly rectified) in the past path of the electron (remember, we are hurtling through space both around the galactic centre and around the sun). So, an electron remains entangled with its antiversal partner that is tugging towards a past location while its matter partner is forging away to a future location. I think this makes possible sense and could be explored.

That leads us onto particle persistence vs particle evanescence. Persistence ensures survival further off into deep intergalactic space. Evanescence is represented by very short (in distance) occupancy of the "singularity" towards deep intergalactic space (occupuing an equatorial location on the taurus). Near the singularity, particles with very improbable energies appear to us to survive much longer (because of time dilation) and could contribute to electron family members that are much heavier than the tau electron. To remain partnered (entangled) with their antiversal partner, the antiversal distance may need to be much greater than the measured universal distance suggests; this probably contributes to higher mass.

"Time going backwards"

Epilogue

Hmmmm. Perhaps "God" does play dice. Or should we say "God is dice" ?

Articles of interest:

Note: I am not sure whether I have previously brought attention to Lawrence Krauss's "A universe from nothing". If not, this is an omission to be rectified as he has written much on this subject. Here is a video of him lecturing.

This paper, "One antimatter – two possible thermodynamics" by Klimenko and Maas [doi:10.3390/e16031191] discusses entropy, time and time reversibility. The maths is a like Egyptian hieroglyphics to me but it appears to be rumbling around in an arena that intrigues me.

I have found Donald L Hotson's take on Dirac a useful resource. There are parts 1, 2 and 3. Here is part one.