The Omega Zero of Accelerating Expansion
Gevin
Giorbran
Part One: The Aggregate Structure of Probability Space I. Introduction The realm of possibilities has been referred to as state space, phase space, configuration space, the physicist John Wheeler referred to it as superspace[1], and Julian Barbour named it Platonia[2]. Ludwig Boltzmann in 1868 first presented a study of the possible states of a thermodynamic system[3], breaking with the mainstream belief that all change was purely deterministic. Boltzmann�s statistical methods led the way for the later development of quantum mechanics. In relating the second law to the direction of time, Arthur Eddington in the 1920�s coined the term time�s arrow[4], designating the second law as holding �the supreme position among the laws of nature�, and most scientists are in agreement, in part because the second law provides a rare ability to appreciate the reason �why� behind a law of nature. The simple logic that there are fewer ordered states than disordered states has made a lasting impression upon science even as an ultimate representation of all possibilities, although it should be noted that the second law merely considers the specific states available to a system and not all conceivable states. This fact is normally overlooked. In his attempt to understand why thermodynamic processes were irreversible, Boltzmann discovered the microstates which led to defining the probability statistics of macrostates available to the system. For example, in the case of a number of gas particles in a closed container, we know, at least now, there are a specific number of energy levels available. The point is that the structure of states suggested by the second law is only a subset of possibilities, merely a vague glimpse into a greater composite realm of all conceivable states or patterns. A simple analogy considers the possible states of a coin flip. We recognize heads or tails as available states. We certainly don�t consider states where the coin changes shape, disintegrates, or vanishes into thin air. Nor do we consider states where a tossed coin never falls to the ground but just floats upward into the clouds. Those states, those patterns although imaginatively conceivable are not even science fiction, they�re fantasy. But what of fantasy? How different is the space of possible states from the space of all conceivable patterns? Even to speculate we would have to explore and somehow model such a realm. Why bother? Ultimately we would reasonably expect that the structure of spacetime is a product of what is both possible and probable in nature. Considering that the second law indicates that our universe is influenced and at least generally controlled by probabilities, and also recognizing that the entire underworld of atoms and particles is governed by probability waves and their collective fields, so that the unobserved past and future are both definable only as probabilities[5], we could reasonably expect that the states we consider possible are themselves probabilistically governed by a vaster realm, a complex and finely structured aggregate pattern landscape. The full complexity and magnitude of all conceivable patterns we shall assess is easily underappreciated. Just imagining the alternative coin flip scenarios divergent from the simple results of the coin landing on head or tails is mind boggling. However, the realm of all conceivable patterns is also often imaginatively over appreciated. The ultimate body of possibilities is in no way limitless or unbounded as is commonly assumed. Instead it is structured by ultimate boundaries of extreme possibility which will allow us to model and relate this aggregate pattern space to how we have otherwise been led to model all possible states.
The first step toward modeling pattern space is to clearly
recognize how we otherwise envision the aggregate structure of possible states
as defined by the second law. If we attempt to graphically represent the
superset of possible states, along an axis the num�ber of ordered states
decreases toward an ever fewer measure of highly ordered states, while in the
opposite direc�tion the measure of increasingly disordered states increases.
Referred to here as the wedge model, the largescale structure of states
has been reservedly portrayed in science as closing at the end of highest
possible or�der at a single extreme state, while in the direction of increasing
disorder the general assumption is usually of an endless and indefinite
expansion of states without end.
This asymmetric wedge is a vague yet rarely scrutinized construct for how we envision all possi�bilities. Time itself is imagined as moving or traveling in reference to the body of all possible states through this wedge. Odd when considered, the model lacks a boundary in the direction of disorder, in part because time in an ever cooling universe has in the past been theorized as not having an end. The images in figure 2 below represent how a few noted physicists have graphically represented state space with a wedge model in their own publications[1][2].
However, the reader may sense something is amiss. We are considering a longstanding yet somewhat vague impression of all possible states cast mainly in the years when physicists predicted one of two possible futures, the big crunch and the endless heat death scenarios. We have since entered a remarkably different era in cosmology, and as we now consider the recent discovery that cosmological expansion is accelerating, it appears that this wedge model of states is outdated. In fact, in both of the new future scenarios, in which time approaches zero in either infinite or finite time, Boltzmann�s overall approach of modeling ordered and disordered states is very clearly too simple to effectively explain time�s arrow. Updating the Wedge Since 1998, studies of distant Type 1a supernovae[6] have indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and today it is estimated that the acceleration began nearly six billion years ago, which is nearly half of the age of the universe. In March of 2003 Robert Caldwell and colleagues[7] presented the Big Rip model of the future, which considers the scenario where a dark en�ergy density dubbed phantom energy[8] by Caldwell increases with time, with expansion ripping apart galaxies, stars, and finally atoms. In the Big Rip model the universe is stretched perfectly flat, and the evolution of our universe ends distinctly in finite time at what Caldwell refers to as the ultimate singularity. We know that once the rate of expansion turns from decreasing to accelerating, the outer horizon of the spacetime bubble breaks away from time zero of the big bang and shrinks inward relative to each observer. Eventually all other galaxies leave the event horizon, leaving only the fate of our own galaxy in question. If the acceleration overcomes gravitation and even particle forces, the outer event ho�rizon would collapse inward on every point in space, and spacetime is ended, yet it is the physical expansion of space that pro�duces the collapse. Although direction and extension loose meaning within this final state, there is good reason to envision absolute zero relative to spacetime as a perfectly flat and empty space extending infinitely in all directions. Absolute zero is not properly described as a hypothetical temperature of matter at which all motion stops, but rather absolute zero is a common point of zero for all measures in spacetime physics, including temperature, mass, energy, density, gravity, volume, and time. Thus the only method of one parameter attaining zero is if all reach zero simultaneously, making zero the ultimate Omega state. Although physicists have advocated the possibility that a fluctuation in a vacuum created a matter universe, the consensus has been that a matter universe cannot become absolutely cold, because matter simply won�t cool to zero. The universe might cool forever, endlessly approaching zero, but time would never reach absolute zero. And this explains why absolute zero has not been widely recognized as a member in the space of all possible states (SOAPS), not because a perfectly flat space is inconceivable, but because it was believed that such a state is not available to a universe consisting of particles. So it�s particularly interesting that we have now discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, since the only process that would produce a zero temperature in the future is if an accelerating expansion literally stretches the entire universe perfectly flat. A cold inflationary expansion in which every point in space is expanding away from every other at the speed of light stretches all matter and spatial curvature flat, and may even disallow the creation of virtual particles, thereafter erasing all record of physical existence, or so it would seem on the surface of understanding. To now update how we envision the set of all available states in accordance with accelerating expansion, in the scenario where expansion stretches the universe perfectly flat in finite time, we are required to integrate absolute zero into the set of available states, the broad consequences of which we shall explore throughout this essay. In the scenario where the energy density causing acceleration dissipates, so that accelerated expansion requires infinite time to reach zero, we are required at least to recognize a gradation of low density states available to a cosmological time approaching zero. Although these modifications are required of how we model available states, this outlines for us a first step toward modeling all conceivable states. Modification 1: Admitting Absolute Zero into State Space
The initial step of structuralizing the grandiose realm of
pattern space is the weighty recognition of absolute zero as a boundary state
located beyond the bulk of all disordered states
[9][10][11].
We might initially represent such a model as shown below, with the overall
expanse of states becoming a density gradient, while maintaining Boltzmann�s
orderdisorder gradient adjacent the axis between the alpha state of the big
bang and zero. We might initially consider the possibility that Boltzmann has
described merely a partition of ordered and disordered states within the greater
realm of states adjacent the deep time axis, which are more readily available
and influential to a temporal system in short time durations. In the deep time
of cosmological evolution we find ourselves instead representing a gradient of
density, ordered by the average density of a state, spanning from an infinite
cosmological density at alpha to zero density at omega.
Modification 2: Boundary Conditions With zero admitted as an extreme of possibility in state space the next step is to consider the configu�ration space boundary conditions of a distant future approaching zero, which relate to similar boundary issues of our past. In the deep past, the collapse of spacetime volume is generally assumed to lead to the highest state of order, a singularity[12][13], referred to here as the alpha state. It is generally agreed that once all known matter and energy is collapsed to a point of zero volume, all potential for physical descrip�tion ends, and thus beyond the alpha state, no other possibilities exist. All possible paths in reverse time necessarily converge toward the single alpha state, purely due to there being an ever fewer measure of ordered states in that direction. In considering the distant future the same principles which define the shape of the wedge model apply also to the shape of state space near zero. Regardless of whether we define a zero state in respect to order or disorder, there are obviously fewer states of similarity to the one perfectly flat and empty extreme of zero than not. Thus, similar to the decreasing measure of states near the beginning of time, there is naturally a de�creasing measure of states surrounding zero, meaning that the wedge reverses and closes at both ends of state space, toward alpha and toward zero. Thus we also recognize that in the direction toward zero all possible paths necessarily converge in state space toward one single state.
Modification 3: Adjacent Extremes Next we consider if there may be recognizable boundaries to the structure of all conceivable states at right angles to the deep time axis. There is a vague recognition in cosmology that a smooth configuration is an extreme of possibility or natural boundary in state space at any given average cosmological density or temperature, usually expressed when cosmologists consider that the universe might have remained perfectly smooth after the big bang, and we can easily imagine a uniformly dense expanding space remaining perfectly smooth until a homogenous plasma reaches absolute zero due to an accelerated expansion. This smooth series of states can be recognized as an outer extreme of possibility, an outer boundary beginning at alpha and ending at zero, beyond which no other possibilities exist.
With the smooth boundary recognized, we might also consider that two opposite extremes exist adjacent the axis from alpha to zero, an extreme smooth state, and an extreme lumpy state, even if such a state is initially difficult to envision. The existence of both extremes is evidenced by the ordinary concept of contrast applicable to all images, where color tones are either blended into a single av�eraged color (low contrast) or the color tones of the image blend into two opposing shades of light and dark (high contrast). We can imagine a contrast gradient of states at each point adjacent the density gradient. We might apply this contrast gradient, to the question of why the early universe did not remain perfectly smooth. With similar reasoning supporting the second law, we can deduce that the mainte�nance of a smooth universe during expansion is statistically near impossibility. At each measure of decreasing density, the universe remain�ing perfectly smooth is one possibility among many other possible states where space does not remain smooth. Further, we can predict that the path of any dy�namic system along the deep time path from alpha to zero will probabilistically follow a basin of attraction balanced somewhere between the two contrast extremes, this generally forming a special partition of states available to temporal systems. It might further be argued that the general amount of grouping of matter versus the balanced distribution of galaxies since the big bang, is congruent with this basin of attraction.
The proposal then is that the structure of all conceivable
states or pattern space is enclosed in all directions by extremes, and no states
outside of this spectrum, beyond the smooth and lumpy extremes, are describable
by physics or even imaginable.
Modification 4: The Target of Time�s Arrow Can we explain time�s arrow with this model of pattern space? The most unexplored issue coming from the discovery of accelerating expansion is that regardless of whether the arrival time to absolute zero is finite or infinite, in any scenario where the rate of cosmological expansion increases, the general evolution of spacetime in relation to state space is recognizably moving precisely at the outer boundary of absolute zero, as opposed to moving toward any basin of attraction in state space short of zero. Consequently, the logic of Boltzmann's version of the second law breaks down as a means of explaining the direction of time. If time�s arrow is established by probabilities then time moves in the direction of greater disorder only because there is a larger group of such states. If we treat zero as the lowest possible disorder, any system residing at zero should be expected to probabilis�tically gravitate toward greater order. Once we admit zero and recognize there are two boundary states, so that we can consider a high order boundary and a low order boundary, logi�cally there also would exist a balance somewhere in state space between these two extremes, where a set of states of greater order is equal to a set of states of lesser order. If time and change is ultimately probabilistic, and if the set of all possible states is a quiescently existing mediator as we would expect, regardless if we consider the radical diversity and complexity of all conceivables or merely those states we deem available to our cosmological system, in an infinite yet bounded system of states, making the measure of states countably infinite, there logically would exist a universal basin of attraction for all dynamic systems. In fact the necessity of an ultimate point of balance is built into Boltzmann�s own logic, where all systems tend toward a state of maximum probability. In attributing time�s arrow to a greater measure of disordered states, Eddington and others in principle are proposing that the bulk of disordered states is an attracting body which produces the impetus of time, given that a system originates in a state of high order. Yet we know now with considerable certainty that cosmic evolution isn�t being drawn toward any basin of attraction short of zero, located somewhere between alpha and zero, but rather time�s arrow is on a crash course, literally accelerating toward the target destination point of absolute zero. So we are forced to finally ask a question that has been lying in wait since the discovery of accelerating expansion surfaced in the mainstream 1998. Why is the arrow of time aimed directly at absolute zero, and presently even accel�erating toward zero? What specific role does absolute zero play in the space of all states? The simplest and far most cohesive explanation of a direction of time aimed at zero is that a reciprocal negative set of states extends beyond zero, therein making zero the ultimate balance of state space. The overall structure of states would thus include an inverse set of patterns, similar to the extension of negative numbers beyond zero in the mathematical plane of real num�bers, which are identical yet opposite. Such a model predicts two directions of time as shown below, and predicted in other works[14][15][16]. This modification should feel intuitively satisfying as it exchanges the asymmetric wedge model for a symmetric superstructure for both possible and conceivable states. Figure 8: Pattern Space
We have now developed a bounded and definite model which for the first time allows us to consider the broad realm of all possibilities, as well as the partition of states available to spacetime from what we might call a God�s eye perspective. A topdown perspective toward physical reality has in the past been defended by Piet Hut [17] and the necessity of a topdown approach to cosmology was very recently advocated in a paper by Stephen Hawking [18]. Although there is one more modification, this addition of negative states completes all proposals concerning the largescale structure of states. In this grand body of all states, we can recognize that definitive boundaries exist in all directions of state space, as opposed to any model indefinite in the direction of disorder. We would say then that the aggregate realm of all possibilities is infinite yet bounded in all directions by extremes of physical possibility. V. From Imbalance to Balance In considering a state space with zero fully integrated, we consider the possibility that absolute zero, as an attractor in our future is responsible for the origin of time. If accurate this would lead us to replace our previous attempts to explain the first moments of time as arising out of a (zero) vacuum, due to a quantum fluctuation, with the quite different view that time invariably originates from the extreme positive or negative side of the spectrum of all states, and probabilistically travels toward zero. So rather than the theory that time moves from an initial condition of high order to disorder, the reason for the direction of time becomes a universal principle that systems evolve from imbalance to balance. As to why any system would originate in a state of imbalance, there is a universal answer to that question which would be as equally effective in Boltzmann�s modeling of states as in this new model. If all possible states are not merely ethereal potentialities, but instead physically exist, then in principle the history of any temporal system embedded in those states will necessarily trace backward to improbability rather than probability. In Boltzmann�s model, any state not at thermal equilibrium would innately trace back to extremely improbable order. In this new model, any state not at balance will temporally evolve toward balance, so any history, any past record of a system in which any imbalance exists, will inevitably trace backward to an ever greater extreme of imbalance. The temporal evolution of a state more positive will trace back to an extreme positive alpha, a state more negative will trace back to an extreme negative alpha. I shall refer to this as the Parmenides Principle. In now asking, what creates the special partition of states available to our spacetime system, the classical assumption is that nature�s laws, particularly conservation laws, constants, energy levels, the four forces of nature, all somehow contribute to shaping the partition. However, we might instead entertain the option that available states within the partition merely correlate with such laws and forces. There may not be any overbearing laws regulating temporality�s course through the landscape of all states, rather the landscape itself may be intricately shaped by probable and improbable regions. The special many worlds[19] partition of spacetime systems like our own may simply be a construct of the most probable courses through an aggregate pattern space. We might imagine that such temporal pathways move similar to water flow, controlled by a complex contour of attractors and basins of attraction, always generally attracted to higher probability, with currents and eddies flowing into the major riverways, exploring all possible paths but only within the more probable regions. All such pathways may be built into the topology of a complex and finely structured aggregate landscape of all conceivable patterns, where the majority of territory may be so improbable as to be temporally impossible. In the model so far explored, all spacetimes begin from either the positive side of the spectrum producing a matter universe, or systems begin from the negative side which yield identical but inverse systems of antimatter, while both imbalanced systems probabilistically (and systematically) evolve to zero (the probabilities of this model are explored in part three). As a universal principle, as a supreme law of all naturally (probabilistically) formed temporal universes, already this exploration of the possible realm suggests that all universes begin with a big bang and expand super flat. The proposal being made is that there are natural boundaries to the whole of temporal systems allowed to exist, opposing the existence of all other conceivable cosmological scenarios of a multiverse[20]. If indeed we can exclude the majority of dissimilar cosmological scenarios (dissimilar to our own) from statistical probability, then our dependence upon the anthropic principle for explaining the design of our own universe is greatly lessened. Timelessness In support of the Parmenides principle, a concept that resulted from the theory of relativity was that all of spacetime forms a unified four dimensional existence. In regards to Minkowski's space world, in his book Relativity[21], Albert Einstein wrote, "Since there exist in this four dimensional structure no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence." Einstein's belief in the unification of past, present, and future, was expressed most poignantly in a letter to the family of his lifelong friend Michele Besso, who died shortly before his own death. Einstein wrote that although Besso had proceeded him in death it was of no consequence, "for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."[22] Notably, years later Richard Feynman came to define time as a direction in space [23], and more recently Stephen Hawking has become increasingly adamant in expressing that the universe existing in imaginary time is self contained and has no boundary[24]. It may be that the only solution to why time begins in a state of improbability is that a four dimensional system of spacetimes is embedded in a foundational matrix which doesn't evolve and is even unable to change, state space simply is. In this modality, there is no distinction between the words existence and time. We can refer to this mode as timelessness or as a primary reference of time which has no beginning, middle or end. I personally refer to this time as one enormous moment. The physicist Julian Barbour explored timelessness in his book The End of Time [1], which calls for a timeless perspective in physics. And the philosopher Huw Price refers to a related perspective as the view from nowhen[25]. We turn our focus now on how to properly reintegrate order and disorder into this evolved model, which is far more challenging that one might expect, since al�though zero is clearly the highest possible state of entropy, the most distinct property of an absolutely flat space is perfect symmetry, which might con�tradict any designation of zero as the lowest possible order. To explain the fifth and most significant modification brought about by the introduction of absolute zero into both the SOAPS and pattern space models, I must first propose a modification to how we understand order and disorder. What follows in part two is actually the more consequential material of this report.
Note: The section below is a sort of mental preparation for Part Two. It is basically a philosophy that I have developed over many years in support of timelessness and the inevitability of the universe. The ideas can be extremely helpful in adjusting to the fourth coming introduction of two orders. You may read it or skip it and move directly to the introduction of two orders by clicking on the link.
Part Two: Introducing Two Opposing Types of Order
I. Something from Nothing Forgive me but it is helpful here to first establish a mental framework. In considering why a universe exists, the most common expectation made by scientists is that an absolute nothing is more probable, more simplistic, and more natural than the universe. Max Tegmark points out that nothingness would have zero information content[25], whereas a something universe contains at least minimal information. For this reason, a nothingness seems to require no cause or explanation where in contrast a world of things being physical, being definitive, being diverse in character and quality, requires an explanation or reason for existing. �The fact is, nothing could be simpler than nothing � so why is there something instead?� remarks the astronomer David Darling. In the case of whether a universe should exist versus nothing at all, the existence of a universe seems to violate Ockham�s razor, which states the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. And so nothing seems more probable than any universe. Such logic seems inescapable until we fully understand that there are two concepts entangled together in the common meaning of the word nothing, and at this time in history they are regularly confused as one concept in modern science and philosophy, and even in the dictionary. If we carefully study the common meaning of nothing we can discover two distinct references, one toward something that is real and exists but has no discernable form or substance, such as a white canvas, a void, or an empty space. The other reference is toward a different and much more radical concept, that of nonexistence. Imagine you find yourself in a world of white that extends away from you, yet because there is just the one color you can�t tell if this world extends out forever or its edge remains just out of reach. Only your physical body provides a sense of distance. If you further paint yourself white, suddenly all sense of dimension is erased from your experience, and soon even the color white disappears from your experience. Someone who is blind doesn�t see black, because even if they did upon initially going blind, the black would quickly loose meaning for them because it is just one color and without differentiation the mind interprets such a world as a perceptual nothing. And in fact the mind is correct because a world of singularity is all nothing can ever be. The real nothing that exists is merely singular form, and such singularities are one of the most common features found in nature, space being the most obvious example. If we remove all the ordinary matter from space it has merely been reduced to a singular expression of nature. We do then loose our ability to reference the space, but we shouldn�t make the mistake of associating this perceptual phenomenon with the idea of nonexistence. Singularities exist, but they don�t in any way relate to nonexistence. In fact nonexistence shouldn�t even be recognized as a word. When the dictionary defines nothing as something that does not exist, it is reasonably obvious that there is something at odds with the syntax of the phrase, simply the reference to a something which �does not exist�, commits an obvious semantic error. The problem in defining the term is that it is impossible to meaningfully define what nonexistence refers to. How can we possibly reference nonexistence when there is no such state or form? In fact the term nonexistence is actually an anomaly in language. The word nonexistence is entirely unique from all other words in that it attempts to borrow meaning in a way that no other concept or idea borrows meaning. All other cases of borrowed meaning refer to something of meaning, something not denied. If we refer to nonEuclidean or nonstandard, what is being referred to has meaning independently. If something is nonwhite, we know the color is some other, at minimum, offwhite color. If we say a temperature is not cold, the reference is to �being greater than cold�, so something is warm or just right, or perhaps its not merely cold, but extremely cold. Anything that is not, is something else, except nonexistence. The term nonexistence does not refer to anything else having any meaning whatsoever, so only the negating non and the word existence have meaning individually. The universe is everywhere we go and everywhere we see. There is no place where the universe is not. Yet we still imagine in a vague way an alternative, as if the universe could stop existing, as if we ourselves might not exist. When we separate the real nothing of singular form apart from the concept of nonexistence, and consequently realize that nonexistence is actually meaningless, it becomes lucidly clear that if there could be nonbeing then perhaps it would be so, yet there cannot be a nonbeing, so we cannot even refer to it as a possibility, and so we can reasonably conclude from this issue that we ourselves exist fundamentally because there is no alternative to existence. We accept the word nonexistence because it makes sense to say unicorns or square circles don�t exist. And if there is nothing in the refrigerator, we can say, the milk doesn�t exist in the refrigerator. But what we are really saying is that the milk isn�t in this location at this point in time. As the physicist John Wheeler said, time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. The absence of the infinity of things that might exist in the space inside the refrigerator doesn�t ever create a black hole of nonexistence. It merely reduces that space to the seeming formlessness of a singularity, what we define as empty space. Similarly, in the absence of magical unicorns the universe still exists, so all that we can really say is that imaginary things don�t have form like we have form. We know that form in some way establishes or relates to what is meaningful, and we know that square circles don�t exist, because the meaning of each separate form contradicts the other when defined as one thing. So again there is a ruling of form. Nonexistence cannot by definition be form, and the term does not produce any more true meaning than a square circle manages to have meaning. So any attempt to define a nonexistence using any meaningful idea or thought, by using the meaning that otherwise defines all language, that defines reality, is predetermined to fail. Meaningfulness is purely unable to refer to the negation of existence. So nonexistence is not cold or dark, or a void or an abyss, and its not even the most simple state imaginable, it is just a misconception, an anomaly in language we ourselves have created. Physicists and mathematicians commonly make conceptual relationships between nothing and other concepts such as zero, the empty set, a vacuum, and empty space, all of which is fair and accurate, until we step over the line where we pollute these phenomena with the notion of a nonexistence. The notion of a vacuum or empty space having a hidden content, or producing things such as virtual particles, is expressed as one of the great curiosities of physics and nature. And nothing seems more miraculous than a beginning of time. More than once a scientist has remarked that apparently you CAN get something from nothing. Where the line is being crossed is in viewing something from nothing as some kind of miracle, as if we gained �something� from nonexistence, because the nothing that we get something from in nature is originally always just a singularity. Once we acknowledge that a real nothing commonly exists, then we are ready to consider that we shouldn�t expect a nothing in nature to be absent of content. Singularities are one uniform thing, but we can easily create a singularity by combining many things together. If we take everything out of the refrigerator, throw it in a large stew pot, and cook it for ten hours, all the ingredients blend together. All the many separate forms, the vegetables and meats, and all the liquids, end up unified into a single medium. So we can easily create a singularity out of many separate things. If one wants to complain about particle form we can heat them into a plasma or cool them into a condensate. It�s just a matter of turning the contrast knob from high to extremely low and finally to zero contrast. Therefore, turning up the contrast, and dividing up a singularity into individual things should not be any more of a surprise. The only scientific issue is correlating conservation laws with the transition of definitive form to formlessness, from maximum energy to maximum entropy, although in order to accomplish this task we must first modify how we perceive what is order and disorder, because the formlessness of a singularity isn�t nonexistence, and its not disorder either.
Part Two: Introducing Two Opposing Types of Order
References
[3] Boltzmann Ludwig, On the relation between the sec�ond law of the mechanical theory of heat and the probability calculus with respect to theorems of thermal equilibrium. Sitzungsber. Kais. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math. Naturwiss. Classe 76, 373 (1877).
[4] Eddington, Arthur, The Nature of the Physical World. Macmillan
(1929), The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Cambridge University Press
(1923). [6] Perlmutter Saul, et al., Nature 391, 51 astroph/9712212 (1998); Perlmutter, S., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 astroph/9812133 (1999). Riess, A. G., et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009, astroph/9805201 (1998). [7] Caldwell, Robert R., Kamionkowski Mark., Weinberg Nevin N., Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday. astroph/0302506 (2003). [8] Caldwell, Robert R., A Phantom Menace? Phys. Lett. B 545, 23, astroph/9908168 (2002). [9] Giorbran, Gevin, The Superstructure of an Infinite Universe (1994); At the Shore of an Infinite Ocean (1996); Exploring a Many Worlds Universe (1997). [10] Giorbran, Gevin, Everything Forever; Learning to See the Timeless Infinite Universe (2004). [11] Giorbran, Gevin, Everything Forever; Learning to See the Timeless Infinite Universe (1996); Macrocosmic Symmetry, On Modeling Macrocosmic State Space (2001). [12] Misner, C. W., Absolute Zero of Time. 10.1103/PhysRev.186.1328 abstract (1969). [13] S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314, 529 (1970); S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale structure of spacetime (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973). [14] King, Chris C., DualTime Supercausality, Physics Essays 2/2 128151 (1989). [15] Pitts, Trevor, Dark Matter, Antimatter, and TimeSymmetry, physics/9812021 (1998). [16] Stenger Victor. J., Time's Arrows Point Both Ways. Skeptic, vol. 8, no. 4, 92 (2001). [17] Hut, Piet, As in a Dream. ias.edu (2000). [18] Hawking Stephen W., Cosmology from the Top Down. astroph/0305562 (2003). [19] Everett, Hugh, On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, thesis submitted to Princeton University. (1957); Relative State� Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, (1957). [20] Deutsch, David, The Fabric of Reality, Penguin (1997). [21] Einstein, Albert, Relativity; The Special and General Theory, Random House (1961). [22] Einstein, Albert, Letter to Michele Besso's Family. Ref. Bernstein, Jeremy., A Critic at Large: Besso. The New Yorker (1989). [23] Feynman, Richard, SpaceTime Approach to NonRelativistic Quantum Mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 20 367, (1948); The Theory of Positrons. Physical Review 76, 749, (1949) fsu.edu; SpaceTime Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. 76 769, (1949) fsu.edu; Mathematical Formulation of the Quantum Theory of Electromagnetic Interaction. Phys. Rev. 80 486 (1950) fsu.edu.
[24] Hawking Stephen W., Hartle
James B., Wave function of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 [25] Price, Hue, Time�s Arrow and Archimedes� Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford (1997).
