Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

RFC: The believability of a sci-fi concept: Gravity is an element of e

  1. Jul 28, 2013 #1

    I’m a sci-fi writer and I wish to gage the believability of (or lack of) the following which I’m using in a story.

    Concerning the extensions to cosmology and quantum physics, one of the cornerstones of my book’s sci-fi universe stems from a strange and intriguing fact that I’ve ‘expanded’ on… (I checked with science forms in 2002 or 2003 and in the vast majority of replys was told that 'this fact' was true. If you disagree with the baseline premise--OK. You may still find this amusing.)

    The properties of infinite density (a singularity) and those of an absolute vacuum (this means no vacuum energy, no virtual particles, absolutely nothing) are identical. Actually, neither have many properties to speak of but, if you try to break it down then:

    A singularity (infinite density):
    • Is completely uniform (that is, it is the same everywhere--it has but a single ‘state’)
    • Has no events
    • Has no time
    • Has no temperature
    • Has no volume
    • Has no particles
    • It is the absolute baseline of entropy

    An absolute vacuum, if you'll review the above list, has the exact same properties. Therefore, in my sci-fi series at least, they are the same thing. And since the two are the same, both generate infinite gravity and it is not mass that creates gravitational attraction but rather that all mass is attracted to a lessor number states or, if you will, a return to entropy’s baseline.

    The big bang threw us away from this and towards increasing entropy but all is still pulled towards it--this is gravity, the force that unsuccessfully fought against the big bang and now unsuccessfully fights against dark energy (my story explains this too but that’s another story).

    In my story this singular state is called a unistate.

    How can this be viewed? If you picture the face of a clock, and say that twelve o’clock is the unistate (i.e. the infinite density or the absolute vacuum) then one minute after twelve might be a neutron star (or a second after the big bang) and one minute to twelve might be just a low state of vacuum energy and virtual particles (one destiny of the accelerating expansion of our universe). Circumventing the clock (clockwise) could be the life of a universe.

    If true, things change considerably. Dark matter might vanish (as it is does in my sci-fi) as the seemingly odd rotation of galaxies would simply be the balance of the gravity from all the matter in the central areas against the gravity from the lack of matter towards the outside (and beyond). Think about how a black hole is created: the explosion of a large star infinitely compresses some of its matter at its center or…the explosion sucks all of the matter out of its center (does it really matter which).

    I could go on but, enough. Your thoughts, feedback and insights please.

    Rusty Williamson
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 28, 2013 #2
    I've wondered about the layman accidentally coming up with a valid gravitational theory for half a lifetime. Make that 2/3 of a lifetime. However, since my tome hit the e-book world, a simple one-liner has got a surprising reaction from two separate researchers in two countries. It's odd, because letters to the mainstream science magazines 25 years ago wouldn't even make 'Letters' status.

    I'm not sure if it was this forum or similar one. It was certainly well run, and one Mod pointed me in the direction of an American university professor who had considered the basic idea. It was simple. A spacetime fabric flows into matter. This professor clearly stated, "I (or we) do not know where all this spacetime is going." I imagined I had the answer.

    I wrote to him, and asked rather formally if I might, as a layman, suggest my idea. He replied to the affirmative. When I sent in my one-pager, he came back with the rudest communication I have ever received from anyone in my life. Years of flying had hardened me to all kinds of behavior, but I had imagined a rather more sophisticated response from someone of his standing. "Now't so queer as folk."

    The mistake I'd made was to start with the basic concept, and he'd read no further before loosing his missive at me. If he'd read on, he would have seen I'd suggested that if such a field were to be flowing into every particle of matter as it changed scale, it would be like feeding this increase of absolute scale with a fuel akin to the Higgs' field.

    The expansion would be only visible by an Olympian observer since any ruler would be increasing in scale, but there's plenty of room.

    This hypothesis can not work in its simple form. However, if such an inflowing fabric imparts a small force with each discrete step of this inflow, then it starts to look a bit more realistic. Still, I feel better than Georges Lemaître. He was brilliant, and still got sent away with a flea in his ear for proposing a nonsensical idea.
  4. Jul 28, 2013 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I can't possibly see how this is correct. A singularity is a result of our math simply breaking down because we don't know what happens at that scale. Even if one does exist in real life, I cannot see how something of infinite density has the same properties of an absolute vacuum.

    How so? How does it have no time and no spatial dimensions? How could entropy even apply when there simply isn't anything there? That's far different from being the baseline of entropy to my knowledge.

    Except this isn't true. Gravity does not work like this. It cannot work like this without contradicting our observations.

    This is incorrect. You've actually gotten it backwards. The explosion is the result of the collapse, not the other way around.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook