Cosmological Cycles

Chaotic Patterns
Chaos, Galaxies and Stellar Systems
References and Recommended Reading

What is the physical reality and nature of the universe?

This is the starting point of a very interesting conjunction of rapidly changing, cutting edge scientific disciplines. This journey takes you into the most fundamental areas of science that ask the above question.

Scientists from each of these disciplines may find much to think about and debate since a great deal of this material represents a reanalysis and resynthesis of those disciplines. This site is meant to be an introductory site rather than a complete treatise on these subjects. It is intended to take on areas of scientific inquiry that the author has found to be less than adequate or outright incorrect and provide another, and more comprehensive approach to fitting the countless pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of our universe together to make a Theory of Everything.

From Smallest to Largest:

Quantum Theory
Particle Physics
Nuclear Physics
Atomic Physics
Solid State Physics
Molecular Physical Chemistry
Molecular Biology
Planetary Science
Chaos Theory
Theory of Everything

One of the problems that has plagued scientists who search for such an all encompassing theory is that they may study idealized examples of some phenomenon and then using certain pre-selected over-simplifications, they develop some rational mathematical expressions or other means of quantifying those phenomena without attempting to keep the rest of science in the picture they develop. Ultimately, chemists create a science that is limited and disconnected with much of quantum physics and particle physics. Biologists cannot get beyond the boundaries that they set themselves for a definition of life versus inanimate matter. Astrophysicists continually discover new phenomena and objects that don't quite fit with their previous theories and must repeatedly modify or discard their past limited thinking in exchange for some newer, but still limited understanding. Cosmologists of today have marched down a number of dead end pathways based upon a small number of observations that have probably been misinterpreted through the use of incorrect analogies. Analogies are the crutch we often resort to when we do not have the ability to directly observe and measure something that is outside of our normal, everyday experience and senses.

When one re-examines classical textbooks in various scientific subjects that try to formalize those subjects into "hard" sciences, it is quite amazing that most of the examples and models used for teaching fall into the category of linear models. Often that is implied but when restated against the backdrop of the non-linear, non-idealized real world and real universe, even a "straight" line is curved and distorted to some small extent. Such false idealizations in our core bases of our sciences can have a "butterfly effect" on our thinking, visualization and ability to accurately describe real panorama of all manner of universal phenomena.

The larger universe's infinity is populated by a smaller, yet infinite number of bits of matter, energy quanta and lines of various forces (i.e., directional action at a distance aka fields) that are non-linear in their design, motion and interactions. We still have no adequate definition or understanding of the nature of fields, the universal medium or space-time continuum, or time itself within our collective worldview of the universe. Yet most scientists have moved far ahead of these basics and quantified their respective subjects through the use of an inappropriate artifice, the linear Cartesian coordinate system. This has led to countless equations based upon an X, Y, and Z position with or without a time-dependency (variable T) value association. Such a mass psychological approach to measuring anything in the real universe quite obviously colors the viewpoint of the scientist and distorts the ability to measure an intrinsically non-linear phenomenon accurately. The best way to measure non-linear phenomena is through the use of an appropriately chosen non-linear coordinate system. If one keeps a non-linear basis in all of the quantification, then it becomes possible to recognize patterns that exist between the disciplines and even more importantly, to have a real opportunity to find the "master equations" of the universe. Such mathematical relationships would be the ultimate descriptors of how any and all matter organizes itself, behaves, interacts and would allow all scientists to view a Theory of Everything from the same mountain top of knowledge. Chaos theory provides such a vehicle to reformulate all of our scientific observations into more realistic ones at all scales.

In the view of the author, the real universe is already infinite in duration and expanse. It had no beginning nor end in time nor spatially. It represents the largest Cantorian infinity quantitatively in the capacities that it offers the collection of smaller infinities for each of its contained sets of elements; its individual, localized contents such as various units of matter and units of energy.

The subject of different sizes of infinity was formalized and well explored by the German mathematician, Georg Cantor (1845-1918). But more simply stated, anything that can be repeated over and over, without end or limitation, represents some type of "infinite" phenomenon. No boundary conditions exist or can be found. He also demonstrated that one can have different mathematically represented infinities with larger infinities occupied by smaller infinities. An example might be a one foot long ruler being subdivided over and over into ever-smaller increments. It continues to be subdivided to lengths much smaller than atoms so we can say that we have cut the ruler into an infinite number of pieces. Even so, the ruler and its resultant fragments began and end their existence within the infinitely larger universe. But what the author argues is that the mathematical definitions and operations pertaining to any kind of infinity are merely quirks or artifices of our still imperfect systems of mathematics. Physical reality is what it is and until we can perfect an understanding and system of quantification of it, we will have aberrations at times in some of the formulations.

So what questions make sense in such a reality? One does not need to dwell on any scientifically untestable hypothesis about what kinds of physical boundaries may or may not be present which may or may not envelope our observable universe. It is meaningless to try to ask the question of "what lies outside of our universe?" or "into what does our universe expand?" when by all of our direct senses and measures each part of the universe we can access and measure demonstrates the same design and physical behavior. The only thing that this new approach to a Theory of Everything relies upon is that one can strictly extrapolate this basic universal design ad infinitum to all other parts of the whole.

When one looks at the universe as a continuum in spatial and temporal extents, it is also desirable to carry such a basic design concept into all scales of the universe as well. What is meant by that statement is that space can be considered continuously accessible in its existence and extent in all directions. It can be continuously subdivided into smaller and smaller dimensions or domains. It can be continuously magnified into larger and larger dimensions and domains without break. Such continuity is what all of our senses have demonstrated to us but which sometimes is ignored when quantized or mathematically discontinuous functions are developed. The mathematical description, based upon a less-than-perfect understanding of its subject soon gains a life of its own. It becomes the reality that the theoretician lives within and tries to make the universe fit into. Rather than continuing to work from the real physical universe, many theoreticians discard reality in favor of mathematical models. They prefer the faulty cloak of false understanding to the stark but unclear nature of physical reality.

The author predicates his worldview on a pure and exact interpretation of the Scientific Method and its strict rules of usage. For this reason, the reader should be willing to set aside any past theoretical foundations, prejudices or new discoveries du jour of their scientific field of study and walk alongside of the author during this reanalysis of physical reality. Once the journey is completed, critical examination, questions and debates may follow to help sort out truth from fallacy. Whether it results in a relative or absolute truth will only be apparent in the years and centuries to come. But all of our scientific understanding should be periodically subjected to such skepticism and scrutiny.

The name of this subject and website is Cosmological Cycles. The author coined this term and chose this terminology for one very important reason. When one looks for a reason why the universe is never-ending and self-sustaining, it must somehow be able to renew itself in all of its various components. These components may be formed from elementary precursors which may ultimately have resulted from the total breakdown of previously existing matter. It is seen and understandable as a cyclic process of constructive association, evolution and finally destructive disassociation. (This state of never-ending association, evolution and dissociation behaves in the same closed cyclic fashion that perpetual motion machines are thought to work.) But what results resupplies the engines of reconstruction thus never-ending dynamic cycles emerge in the basic operating design of the universe. These cycles can be found at all scales of the universe, from elementary particles to super-galactic clusters.

In a very strange twist, both a Big Bang history and an infinitely existing history both coexist in our universe. But rather than a Big Bang having occurred at one moment in one singularity in one location of the resulting universe, we can actually recognize and trace such evolutionary tracks of matter and energy creation in an infinite number of locations within our universe. Wherever a black hole of any size exists, the matter and energy that ultimately are attracted to or emitting from these objects undergoes the same condensation and association that Big Bang theorists attribute to their hypothetical singularity. We have an uncountably infinite number of Big Bang loci scattered throughout the greater infinite universe. Each one formed from the natural laws of matter and energy that have been observed and measured ever since Man began to study and classify himself and his environment. Thus all of the "stuff" that exists within the empty space of the infinite universe repeatedly passes through various cycles of renewal. Matter and energy are strictly conserved. This is where our real understanding begins.

Within any part of each cycle there is directionality and the arrow of time points in only one direction. The laws of classical thermodynamics also apply. But when the observer takes a giant step back to see the whole of the universe's design and operation, such directionality is not necessarily evident. In fact, chaotic behavior in which meta-stable states or regions occur appears to be the underlying preference of all physical systems and motion. Like water swirling down a sink drain, it courses to an open body of water, there to evaporate from new heat input and ultimately condense into precipitation to be collected in a reservoir for reuse. Localized energy gains and losses drive the process and since it is still an open system with respect to the rest of the world and universe, it is not a perfect, self-contained and completely definable type of cycle. But when one looks throughout the universe for similar overall cyclic system behavior, it leaps out from everywhere with each glance. It impresses the idea upon the observer that the infinite universe, if it neither gains nor loses mass or energy to some other external "exo-universe" then it must be considered an infinitely-large, infinitely long-lived but non-open system. This, too, can be equivalent to a perpetual motion system.

(C) Copyrighted 2008 by Joseph H. Guth, Ph.D.