Wednesday, March 20, 2013


Over the last year I have formulated a number of separate ideas. These include; my work on Direct Relativity, quantum gravity, black hole singularities, Layer Cake Theory, 4-dimensional domain grid space (O'Neill space) and others. Recently, while trying to unify some of these ideas I came across some inaccuracies in my previous statements. I will try to outline my new theory while hopefully correcting some of these inaccuracies as I go.

First of all if you have read my articles on 4D domains (O'Neill Space), or Layer Cake Theory, you will know that I have been attempting to unify the concept of Relativity with that of Quantum Mechanics for some time now.

Lets just take O'Neill Space for a start. This is the concept that ordinary 3-dimensional grids can be rotated to create 4-dimensional grid domains. These new domains show us, that from our perspective at least, there is no difference between the 4th dimension (time), which is a spatial dimension, and the minute realm of the quantum world. That sounds like a bold statement, and I almost cringe writing it, but that is just the way it appears to me when I try to look at this information.

What this means is that a craft accelerating through space at light speed would enter into the fourth dimension, the region of space whose interaction with 3d space creates the impression of time, and simultaneously would also be crossing the divide into the strange world of quantum mechanics.

How can this be?

Well, for a start. Any massive object that under goes considerable acceleration undergoes a length contraction, known as a Lorentz contraction, which is equivalent to a foreshortening in 4d space-time. At fully light speed this contraction (foreshortening) is infinite, meaning that the object has been compressed along one axis down to the quantum spatial level. It would appear that the other axes would extend into the 4th dimension, so very little of the craft would appear to exist from our world view; having entered into the realm of the past or future.

So, at light speed, the craft appears to have undergone such a strange manifestation as to allow it to become, for all intents and purposes, some kind of quantum particle.

Here, we start to blur the lines of something that should be rather basic in science. Namely, the notion of scale and perspective i.e. the difference between something being small and something being far away. It would appear that, on a cosmological scale, there is no difference. The reason why quantum particles appear so small is because they are actually located at extreme distances somewhere along the 4th dimension. This is actually not contested among most quantum physicists.

Where things start to get weird is when we apply this same notion to our accelerating space craft. When the spaceship accelerates away from us, it naturally gets smaller - this is perspective - but it is also breaking through the quantum barrier, which means that it is also getting smaller by under going a dimensional/scale contraction. We might think that these two effects should compound each other to produce a really rapid contraction, but actually they don't because they are the same effect. That is really mind boggling: Wait a moment until you get your head around that one.

Lets put the above in the language of Direct Relativity and see how we can clear it up and begin to see it from a 'Grand Unified' perspective. This will also give me a chance to revise some of the points I made in previous articles.

Lets go back to our tesseract, which serves as our representation of 4d timespace. Imagine that the cube located at the centre of the tesseract is ordinary 3D space. The cube that is adjacent to it, to the left, is distorted to the same degree that we would expect our spaceship to be distorted when traveling at the speed of light i.e. it is Lorentz contracted. Because this cube is angled at ninety degrees to our own universe and distorted into 4d space, we will only be able to perceive a fraction of what is going on there. If we continue this rotation by another 45º, which is equivalent to accelerating it another one half the speed of light - meaning that the object is now traveling 1.5 times the speed of light - the object becomes completely flat from a multiple of perspectives.

Lets go back to how this relates to the quantum world. It would appear that the distorted cube relates to the quantum world of particles and waves, whereas the rotated and flattened cube relates to the Plank Limit. Once the tesseract is rotated a final 45º, a rotation equivalent to twice the speed of light, it flips entirely into an area of the fourth dimension which is out of reach to us.

It is difficult to say what this area corresponds to, although it would appear that spacetime is actually the result of two separate and completely alike dimensions (Universes) interacting. Time is the bleed between these two domains, or the result of some kind of communication between the two of them.

When we travel at light speed, we travel along the node or conduit which bridges these two universes. But when we completely exceed the boundary of either Universe, which for us is the Plank Scale, we enter into one or the other.

Now lets look at the whole thing for a completely different perspective. Here our 3D universe is represented by the cube that surrounds the tesseract and stretches off into infinity in every direction. This is a concept that we are more familiar with. Ordinary matter appears solid up to the boundary of the tesseract, after which we enter into the Lorentz contracted space of the quantum world. The boundary of the inner-cube represents the Plank Limit and the inner-cube itself represents the space of this postulated other dimension.

When traveling at the speed of light an object begins to orientate into the 4th dimension and, as a result, catches up with the flow of time itself causing it to stand still. Obviously, this means that time is the result of space expanding into the 4th dimension. However, it should be pointed out that this expansion is bubbling up from the quantum realm and is therefore coming from the 4th dimension to begin with.

As I have stated before, space is not really expanding at all it is merely rotating in 4D space. This explains why when a moment is gone, its gone. We cannot recapture the past because the region of space-time that is associated with it has slipped beyond the event horizon and into the 4th dimension.

Sunday, November 11, 2012


Using the Wolfram Demonstrations app for Modular Arithematic we can generate some interesting and colorful patterns; like this non-restrictive modulo 18, sum of squares operation.
The general look of these patterns reminded me instantly of a sound waves experiment which was popular on YouTube a while back. The experiment shows a layer of salt on a steel plate that is being vibrated by a sonic frequency. When this occurs interesting patterns begin to show.

These patterns have been formulated into a table, reminiscent of modular forms. It is obvious that some of these patterns 6,7 and 7,6 are modulo operations. 6,7 is equivalent to Mod 13, nonrestrictive addition operation.

By overlaying the visual representation of the sound waves with the modulo 18 table, we get a satisfactory match (See below);

Modular arithmetic has always been linked to waveforms, but what I am doing here is trying to demonstrate it visually, as well as mathematically, so that anyone can appreciate it. Furthermore, because modular and elliptic forms are implicated in the make up of matter; via the electron shells (See; Modular Electron Configuration) the electrons themselves must be produced by an equivalent cosmic vibration located within the aether; a concept which science has tersely and inaccurately dismissed.


The Fano Plane (of order 2) was invented as a sort of a game for mathematicians, by mathematician Gino Fano. The game was to try to make a projective plane with the smallest possible number of points and lines, 7 each, with 3 points on every line and 3 lines through every point. This problem remained a difficult one, until someone remembered that not all lines need be straight. A circle was then added to the projective plane to create what we know as the Fano Plane today. (Note; I am sort of paraphrasing history here).

The Fano Plane is isomorphic with PSL(2,7), which has symmetry with the Klein Quadratic. John Baez linked the Klein Quadratic to the structure of cubes and anti-cubes. I thought that this was interesting and have decided to share some of my observations concerning the Fano Plane, as a result.

When I first saw the Fano Plane it struct me that it was a 2d projection of 3 intersecting lines (or six interconnecting ones) in 3-dimensional space (see above pic). This means that it is, first and foremost, a description of the 3 axis of dimensional space, or the 7 sacred directions; up, down, left, right, forwards, backwards, and the centre. The seven directions are incorporated into the 7 lines and points of the Fano Plane.

The Steiner Roma Projective, based on the Fano Plane. 

We can also imagine that the six intersecting lines are the boundary of 8 cubes stacked to form one larger cube. From this we can create a 3D analogue of the Roman projective plane by taking an spheroid made of some kind of elastic substance (like blue-tack) and squashing it between four opposing cubes arranged like so;

The Roman plane has much in common with the stereo view of the Fano Plane, which reminds me of a 3-dimensional waveform. This is interesting because what the stereogram is revealing here is an octahedral structure. The octohedron is, of course, one of the Platonic Solids that turn up in all kinds of interesting places like in the waveforms of vibrating water droplets and the intersecting lines of the Flower of Life.

The octahedron is the dual of the cube, and under certain rotations has a projective plane of the Star of David.
From here it is a simple step to move to the Fano Plane of order 3; or the second smallest projective plane of 9 points. So, we see that the Fano Plane of order 3 is contained and can be derived from the order 2 plane. We can also create a similar 3-d representation of the order 3 Fano Plane via orientations of partially shaded areas of only two cubes, arranged in opposition like so;
(See if you can figure out which areas of the cube need to be shaded).

Interestingly, the order 3 Fano Plane also makes a ghost appearance in this graph, which shows the symmetry between the points and the lines.

For a full depiction of this thought process, see this recreation of my notes;

As far as symmetries are concerned, Wikipedia has this to say;
The full collineation group (or automorphism group, or symmetry group) is the projective linear group PGL(3,2)[1] which in this case is isomorphic to the projective special linear group PSL(2,7) = PSL(3,2), and the general linear group GL(3,2) (which is equal to PGL(3,2) because the field has only one nonzero element). It consists of 168 different permutations.
There are 7 points, and 24 symmetries fixing any point.
There are 7 lines, and 24 symmetries fixing any line.
7 multiplied by 24 gives us 168. This links the Fano Plane with the Klein Quadratic which can be constructed out of 24 heptagons equalling 168. The number 168 has been discussed before on this blog in relation to the speed of light and atomic structure. The speed of light is obviously the basis for time, and atomic structure the basis of matter (i.e. space). As we know, the Fano Plane is in one sense a description of 3-dimensional space, as well as how matter distorts spacetime (See here). It is interesting therefore that its construction and symmetries should be so in line with our terrestrial perception of time (i.e. 24 hours, 7 days a week). It is as if the fundamentals of mathematical structure of space, as exemplified by the Fano Plane, leads us inexorably to this perception, and no other.

In other words, our Earthly division of time – whilst seemingly arbitrary – must be intrinsic to the nature all of reality on a fundamental spatial level. Why this may be so is another question entirely.

Friday, November 9, 2012


Classical labyrinths, as their names suggest, have remained unaltered in their geometric make up for hundreds if not thousands of years. I recently became interested in the construction of these mazes and how they relate to mathematics. However, I was surprised to see so few variations on what might me termed the classical labyrinth. To address this here are a number of different modes of construction. First the 4-fold construction;

And here with 5, 6 and 7-fold construction;

Next we have 8-fold labyrinth together with a hyper-dimensional theory of light (how did that get in there?). Notice how the 4, 5, 6, and 8-fold labyrinths all have but one centre while the 7-fold labyrinth has three, making it a far more difficult labyrinth to solve.

Finally there are what I refer to as hyperbolic labyrinths, which are really just the same things stretched in perspective.

 Do all n-fold labyrinths with prime numbers above 7 exhibit this multi-centred symmetry, or is it just 7? Post your answers below.

Sunday, October 28, 2012


All the World is a Series of Ties

When I was fourteen I learnt modular arithmetic at school. The examples we got seemed to come in a pattern. The answers were always 2,8,8, or 2,8,7 etc. This immediately got me thinking about the configuration of electrons in atomic shells. Perhaps, I thought, there was a connection between these two disciplines that would explain the mysterious pattern of the electron configuration once and for all. I later realised that there was no such link - at least not in the way I had envisaged. The relationship between the modular arithmetic examples and the electron configuration had been a mere coincidence (either that or whoever set the maths questions was trying to stimulate or impart some kind information).

At first I tried to reconfigure the Periodic Table so that the electrons count was based on remainder. This meant that a chemical reaction was balanced when the all of the elements summed to 0 (zero). Creating a table based on this method would make matching different stable reactions more easy. But it is hardly what you would call a breakthrough.

From here I went onto learn about the relationship between modular forms and elliptic curves. Elliptic curves sounded like they had more to do with the geometry of the election shells than did modular forms on their own, so I decided to investigate them further. At first I could not find out much about them, but then I watched a video about Fermat's Last Theorem and I saw that elliptic curves have more in common with the doughnut or torus shape than their name might otherwise suggest.

Modular forms and elliptical curves are useful in knot theory, because each individual knot can be expressed as one (and only one) modular form. This makes it easier for scientists and mathematicians to differentiate between very complex knot shapes. Many different kinds of knots can be depicted as windings around a torus or doughnut, and each of these is given a modular value like; 1,2 or 3,2 etc.

In this reproduction of my notes (click to enlarge) we can see the list of the periodic elements on the left, followed by their individual modular value and finally by the whole number elliptic curve value. As we can see H (hydrogen) is denoted by the number 1; meaning that it needs one electron to form a stable bond. Next we have Helium, which is stable and as such looks like a closed loop around the torus; See fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1; The closed loop around this torus represents the stable
electron configuration of Helium (Torus Knot: 1,2).

Lithium has three electrons, two of which are bonded and stable. The third loose electron is what makes this a highly reactive and to some extent unstable element. An elliptic representation of this element is as follows; (See fig. 2)

Fig. 2; This is the most common mathematical depiction of elliptic
curve geometry on the Internet. It shows a closed loop next to a 
line stretching off into infinity. The second line can also be thought of
as a loop because its ends meet at infinity. According to my theory
of electron configurations this is an accurate depiction of 
Lithium (Torus Knot: 1.5, 2).

Next we have Berilium. Berilium has four electrons and is therefore more or less stable. This could be depicted as two closed rings around the elliptic plane, but I believe a more accurate and fluid example is shown below in fig. 3.

Fig 3; Outer shell of Berilium
(Be; Mod 4, Torus Knot; 1, 2)
Fig 4: Outer shell of Oxygen
(O; Mod 0, Torus Knot 3,2)
Fig 4: Outer shell of Iron
(Fe; Mod 2, Torus Knot 4,2)

Fig 5; Outer shell of Nickel
(Ni; Mod 0, Torus Knot 5,2)

Next, lets take a look at how chemical bonds might be formed under this model. The example below (fig. 6) shows two Lithium atoms coming into close contact with one another. The two lines which represent the unbonded electrons begin to join energetically at infinity and draw one another closer together.

Fig 6; Two lithium atoms in close proximity.

Eventually they do join creating the well known form of the double torus (fig 7) to create 2Li.
Fig 7; 2 lithium atoms bonded.

It stands to reason that if a simple chemical bond like the one above (fig. 7) can take the form of a double torus, then a slightly more complex one, like 3 Aluminium atoms for example, might take the shape of a triple torus.

The triple torus shape is closely related to the Klein Quadratic, and many other automorphic linear groups that have a distinct relationship to the structure of time.
The toroidal electron configuration discussed in this paper  has been proven in some instances, most notably to do with high temperature superconductors.
However, there are important differences between my model and theirs. For instance, the PSI website depicts the electrons as discrete particles that follow their own individual paths around the toroid, whereas mine shows that the electrons all follow the same twisting path in the manner of a waveform. Waveforms (and therefore modular forms) are an important part of understanding electron shells, and should not be left out or forgotten.

From a structural point of view it is also important to note that the different electron shells, and therefore the different elliptic curves are nested one within the other, and that they share a common centre of symmetry with protons in the nucleus.

What the Modular theory of electron bonding and configuration tells us is that chemical bonding is akin to the knots of knot theory. Every knot has a unique modular form associated with it, known as its link compliment (or fundamental domain). These fundamental domains may be useful in building models of complex chemical compounds or reactions, and lead to the discovery of new kinds of materials in the future.

Thursday, April 12, 2012


In 4d Domain Connector I outlined an idea for 4-dimensional fundamental domains. A consequence of this type of 4D tiling is the observed expansion of space. Although I dubbed this tiling O'Neill space, in reality it is just the fabric of space-time understood from a different point of view. There are, however, a few direct consequences that derive from stating that space is expanding from 4th dimensional space. First off, it means that the rate of expansion is linked, in some way, to our perception and knowledge of what constitutes time itself. Second, it shows that time and space are orthogonal entities, existing at right angles to one another. Other speculations that I will address in this and later posts are;
  • There are no straight line accelerations in space-time, as viewed from outside the 4d reference frame
  • The expansion of space-time becomes negligible, or non-existent, at the speed of light
  • Time is not a spatial dimension with vector points other than those of 4d space
  • Rest mass is effectively a black hole singularity for 4d space

Imagine you are sitting on this train. When you look out the window you notice that objects in the foreground rush passed you at a seemingly greater speed than objects that are situated on the horizon. If we imagine that the motion of the train is equivalent to time, then we can say that the relative motion of the objects in the foreground constitute events passing us by, while the objects that appear frozen in the distance correspond to a 4d spatial vector point that is equivalent to the speed of light. These spacial vector points exist at right angles to the motion of the train, and are therefore 4 dimensional.

Now imagine that the landscape is tiled with a grid pattern, like the one above. This grid pattern is fixed relative to the motion of the train, but it is expanding out towards you from a point dubbed infinity on the horizon. This is the expansion of space that is happening orthogonally to the passage of time. It is driving the circular motion of time, just as water coming out of a right angled sprinkler nozzle drives the sprinkler around. Accelerating in space is equivalent to zooming out into the horizon where the trees and shrubs appear mostly static, thus achieving the relativistic effect of time dilation. If we imagine that our straight line track is actually the circumference of an infinitely large circle then we can legitimately bend our planar grid pattern into a circle (see below). The advantage of having a circular space-time diagram is so we can include the expansion of space from a central 4d point and still have all the characteristics of an ordinary Minkowskian diagram.

In Minkowskian Spacetime diagrams, time is shown on the vertical axis and space is shown on the horizontal axis. The radial space-time diagram has the time 'axis' for the entire 3d spatial realm around the circumference of the circle, while the spatial axis of the 4d realm goes off towards the centre. The whole diagram is rotating with time. Just like an ordinary wheel or merry-go-round the circumference of the circle is traveling much faster than the centre; indeed at the very centre we can say that no rotational motion (i.e. time) is taking place whatsoever. This means that the centre corresponds to the speed of light c and the horizon as viewed from our train.

If it were possible to build a spacecraft capable of traveling at the speed of light, it would depart from a point in spacetime at the outer periphery of the circle (green line) and travel inwards towards the centre (purple line). It would be traveling in a straight line away from this point, but the departure point is also moving around the circumference as time moves on. An outside observer, like ourselves, would see a curved trajectory; by virtue of what is known as the Coreolis effect. If the outsiders perspective exists, it means that there are no straight line accelerations extant anywhere in the Universe. Not even light could be thought of as traveling in straight lines; it would spiral towards different datums depending upon where the original parameters are set. The parametres are entirely movable so this paints the whole Universe as some kind of giant fractal whirligig.

Each time this radial space-time chart rotates it would wipe out or occlude data from an earlier time. The most obvious solution to this is some kind of 5d Riemann surface similar to Log z that extends indefinitely in the vertical axis. The central 'spine' of this structure denotes the speed of light.
By virtue of the fact that Riemann surfaces include both real and imaginary coordinates they give a much better picture of Einstein's equations beyond the speed of light. This is because superluminal  equations require solutions to the square root of a negative number, something which leads directly to imaginary numbers.

It has been speculated that at faster than light speeds time must begin to flow in reverse. However, from my understanding time is space expanding from the central spine at coordinate zero. Therefore, when you cross this impassable boundary point, the expansion of space would be coming from behind your trajectory; something which I don't believe would alter your perception of time or space very much, if indeed at all. Another example of a Riemann surface that could be useful is this one of the multi-valued cube root, or one such like it;

This image returns us to the concept that there exists two separate Universes side by side one another that interact to drive each other one, like an electromagnetic wave. See last post; Tumbling Toy Universe Theory for more on this.

Monday, March 26, 2012


Cosmologists believe that there are three fundamental topologies (shapes) that the Universe could exhibit over time. These are; flat, positively curved, and negatively curved. All three of these models begin with a big bang singularity, but their ends are as different from one another as you might expect.

In the negatively curved model the expansion of the Universe continues until its very fabric can no longer contain the expansion, resulting in what is termed the Big Rip. In a closed positively curved Universe, the Universe expands from the Big Bang singularity and then begins to collapse again into what scientists term the Big Crunch. In a flat Universe, expansion levels out and the structural fabric of the Universe continues to exist forever while its internal processes eventually succumb to heat death.

Although most scientist believe that space is flat, or almost flat, there are a few theories that favor a positively curved (or closed) structure. Among these are the finite, fundamental domain Universe that we looked at in a recent post, and the Big Bounce theory. The latter theory suggests that the Big Bang that instigated our own Universe sprang from the Big Crunch of an even older incarnation. Studies of the quantum fluctuations between each of these singularities suggest that while the physical laws of each consecutive Universe will resemble each other on a fundamental level, no two Universes will ever be precisely the same.

As I have said, the Big Bounce theory relies on our Universe being positively curved overall. I think that this theory is the most interesting of the lot, but I have arrived at some conclusions which are at odds with the standard model. For one thing I propose that our Universe actually consists of two equally sized Universes existing side-by-side. When the topology of one of these Universes is positively curved, the topology of the other is negatively curved. In this way the two Universes are always completely symmetric. At regular intervals these Universes switch their respective Universes.

They are, in effect, playing leap frog with one another.

The analogy of the leap frog game is misleading however, because it implies (as I have done) that there is more than one player. You can't play leap frog by yourself anymore than you can jump over yourself. However, in our Universal model, the two Universes are connected in such a way as to be a single Universe. The closed curvature of one Universe is merely the reversed expression of the open curvature of its neighbour. And yet the two are inextricably interrelated just like the way the concave of a spoon on one side is the natural expression of the convex on the other.

The curious thing about this theory is what happens to the seemingly separate Universes as they cross form one topology into another. In the case of a formerly closed Universe that is reaching its end in a Big Crunch, it would erupt into a massive explosion that would expand outwards into its new incarnation as a negatively curved Universe. On the flip side the negatively curved Universe would be approaching its demise in a Big Rip, partially driven by the Big Crunch on the opposite side. As both of these processes reach their culmination the topology flips and the dying Universe becomes 'reincarnated' so to speak into a positively curved closed structure.

In the violent interim between these two periods, space would appear to have a topology that includes positively, negatively and flat structured Universes all at the same time, and at different scales. It seems to me that there is enough time in this interim period, as it last almost as long as any other period on the timeline, to warrant the existence of a third incarnation of a Universe. This would mean that another big bang/crunch would have to occur as the Universes transition from the interim period into either the closed or open state.

The whole concept can be further visualized with the use of the physics of tumbling toys. When gravity acts on these toys they flip end over end. This is a lot like the way the Universe flips from positive to negative curvature and back again. For this reason I have decided to dub this theory the Tumbling Toy Universe Theory.

It could be that the Big Bounce theory is the correct one, but that its motion and topology is in fact produced by a careful adherence to the mean of both Universes proposed in Tumbling Toy. In this case all of the world lines of this Universe would cross, resulting in a massive singularity.

From a Direct Relativity perspective we could suppose that the curvature/structure of the Universe is evolving over time. To begin with, at the early stages of the Big Bang the Universe had a closed structure, this quickly evolved into the 'more-than-likely' flat Universe we see today, and will eventually develop into the hyperbolic (or negatively curved) system. This is a further example of Direct Relativity (DR) in action, see posts; Direct RelativityStellar ObscuraWithin the Octonions. From a DR perspective this means that the Universe is accelerating (going from 0mph at the Big Bang, to light speed now, and superluminal speeds in the future) or it is rotating in some higher-dimension.