Archives for 2005

Back in the 1990’s, I formulated a theory that the universe is “donut shaped” — well, I said “toroidal” which most people I hung out with at the time would probably have to look up the definition of, so I avoided using the term. I had no scientific expression of my theory, no empirical evidence to prove it — matter of fact, I asserted that the truth value of my theory was unprovable from any other compatible theory because of its properties, nor any math to back it up. It just seemed like the only simple explanation that I could accept at the time. I didn’t even express it in any kind of written form to document it; I just threw it out during conversations that would turn to matters of physics or philosophy where it seemed appropriate to bring it up. Everyone I explained my theory to said I was just being silly and it made no sense, but it made perfect sense to me. Let me explain …

Suppose we want to believe that the known universe is either expanding or contracting inside a larger body of “space” in three dimensions. Suppose we formulated a theory about weak and strong forces between “things” that exist in the universe, for microscopic interactions between particles and macroscopic interactions between large bodies (humans, planets, etc.). What we want to believe is that the universe is finite but the space it occupies has all appearances of being infinite but is likely to be finite. Suppose we want to believe that at fundamental levels, things are spherical in nature but simple spheres and even oblates are too simple of a structure to explain what we observe. I first thought: Well, what if the universe was really the surface of a Moebius strip? You know, that clever strip where if you trace a line on one side all the way around you end up back where you started? You can travel “infinitely” far — or at least, at the surface, perceive it to be — on a segment that has a finite length. But, the universe isn’t a two-dimensional planar thing, and the half-twist inversion is hard to rationalize — too complex of a shape to explain simply. Well, how about a toroid, then? It’s a simple closed geometric shape in three dimensions with an interior space and an exterior surface, that offers symmetry which should make the math simple because you don’t have to have all sorts of exceptional explanations at the half-twist like you would in a Moebius strip. Sounds great, right? Except I’m not smart enough to take this theory any further and I can’t seem to get anyone else to understand what I see.

But, Steven D. Levitt over at the Freakonomics Blog recently wrote about a physicist named Lisa Randall and quoted a passage from her new book titled Warped Passages. (Oh, and if you haven’t heard about Freakonomics yet, check out their site and maybe even buy their book.) What made me do a double-take was the explanation that Randall gave, according to the quote by Levitt:

“[…] Dr. Randall and Dr. Sundrum’s model consisted of a pair of universes, four-dimensional branes, thinly separated by a five-dimensional space poetically called the bulk.

When they solved the equations for this setup, they discovered that the space between the branes would be warped. Objects, for example, would appear to grow larger or smaller and get less massive or more massive as they moved back and forth between the branes. […]”

While this isn’t the same thing as my “universe as a donut” theory, it gets close to describing what I’ve been trying to explain. Think of the branes as the donut and the hole as what they call the “bulk.” I don’t see why they need a pair of universes but I’m sure it’s to tie up some loose end they had to explain. That’s the problem with scientists: they have solutions looking for a problem. If you just solve the problem, you just get the actual solution.

Another thing that makes my theory useful and simple is that it not only explains the universe at the macroscopic end, but also explains microscopic particle behavior — quantum mechanics and all that. Recently, Randell Mills and his company BlackLight Power have come forth describing a new form of the simplest atom, hydrogen, calling it a “hydrino.” (For more background, read this article in the Guardian: Fuel’s paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head.) What’s so controversial is that Mills is describing something which current beliefs in quantum mechanics would assert is impossible. But, Mills apparently is actually demonstrating his findings: how do you argue with reality? Like a fool, that’s how.

Suppose the donut hole represents the proton. Suppose the donut represents the path around the proton that the electron can take. The only rules here is that the proton and electron can’t occupy the same position at the same time, and that the closer the electron gets the “faster” it travels around the center, and centrifugal force says that the electron will favor staying near the outer ring of the donut than the inner ring closer to the hole. The whole notion in quantum mechanics that there’s a fixed distance where the electron can’t get closer to the proton sounds foolish. It might take a lot of energy to do it, but okay, that’s fine. A lot more energy than is available? Possibly. But, space isn’t discrete, it’s continuous, as well as time. Heisenberg figured this out back in 1927 when he expressed his uncertainty principle. According to the Hydrino Study Group page, there’s a “1986 Herman Haus paper that explains how charged particles may undergo acceleration without radiation.” Suppose there actually is radiation but it’s practically unobservable because the radiation event happens closer to the center of the donut’s hole, which keeps it unobservable because as the radiation moves towards the outer edge, it gets absorbed back into the source of the radiation itself. In this way, you have the whole kinetic-potential energy conversion happening, like the swing of a pendulum, but it’s not observable. All we can observe is the acceleration, not the radiation. Why not, right?

Where am I going with all this? Well, I hope people like Randell Mills continues to try and solve problems and not work within solutions and finds a new source of safe energy that everyone wants to believe is “impossible” — you know, because the Earth is flat and all that stuff that scientists know with certainty. I hope that someone like Lisa Randall figures out my everything-is-a-donut theory and proves it for me, somehow. Granted, I think the former will happen sooner than the latter, but that’s fine by me. I don’t need to be proven right; people can continue to argue with reality. Like fools.

UPDATE: Found this article by Richard L. Marker on his Discrete Donut Twisted Chain (ddtc) Model of Space, Matter and Origin of Gravity.

UPDATE: Here’s an article from March 11, 2003: Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate.