Anh Vo

Ritsumeikan University APU

This conversation is closed.

The Hourglass Model

The idea first came to me when I read about the Randall-Sudrum model, a setup of two branes of which one is our universe (M-brane) and the other a gravity universe (G-brane). Even though our world, M-brane, is “supposed” to be an open, expanding universe with negative curvature of space because we can visibly count and see that there is not enough ordinary matter (stars, intergalactic gas, etc.) in this universe, it turned out that the WMAP and Planck spacecraft did measure the curvature to be nearly flat!

On the other hand, I noticed that if graviton is so densely concentrated in G-brane, its geometry should be different from that of M-brane. It should be a closed, contracting universe with positive curvature of space. So my hypothesis is that the curvatures of the two branes must have cancelled out each other and make our universe “look” flat. The appearance of this cancelling is dark matter and dark energy, which are energy oozing out from G-brane to M-brane.

Based on that, I suspect that our universe is cyclic: ever-increasing formation of dimension-tearing black holes which accelerate energy oozing will lead to an eventual collapse of the whole universe into a “5-dimensional soup,” which is so unstable that it immediately restructures back into the two-brane setup. if an observer can observe this Big Bounce event when the contracting G-brane and expanding M-brane bursting into two new branes, it would look like their contents have just swapped places.

Therefore, I call this model the Hourglass. It can provide explanation for the existence of dark energy, dark matter, and faster-than-light communication in quantum entanglement.

  • thumb
    Feb 12 2014: I had the opportunity to run this proposition by a university-based particle physicist.on the ATLAS collaboration. Your statement that the universe looks near flat is accurate and can be verified from the WMAP website and in more up-to-date form on the Planck website. Whether this flatness could be explained by the cancellation you propose would need to be verified by testing against the equations that form the mathematical structure of the Randall-Sudrun model.

    One thing people sometimes do not understand about theory is that one can posit a wide range of possibilities based on physical imagination, but some of these are consistent with only *some* conditions rather than all conditions that must hold to explain or predict what has been observed about the universe.

    To this physicist the conclusions in your third paragraph did not follow.

    My own addition to this is that Lisa Randall in Warped Passages is at her best in explaining what theory building is in physics and what distinguishes that from unanchored flights of imagination.
  • thumb
    Feb 10 2014: Anh, I have another thought for you. As you are at university in Japan, you might stop by the physics department and find a graduate student who studies theoretical particle physics. You might pose your question there.

    One of the often neglected advantages of being at university is that you have access to people who engage in rigorous formal study of theory and evidence and whose scientific training in this field has been vetted, as it were, by the university.

    Another author other than those I have referred you to already who is reliably expert in this area is Brian Green of Columbia University, which has one of the top theoretical physics departments in the world. Greene writes for the layperson, though, so anyone can understand his work.

    Good luck on getting fruitful feedback from someone well-versed in this area.
    • thumb

      Anh Vo

      • 0
      Feb 11 2014: Thank you Fritzie. My university is a business school and doesn't have a physics department.
      I read some books of Prof. Greene. He actually both popularize and mystify science with his multiverse explanations.
      Anyway, I used to send my inquiries directly to many professors but wasn't quite successful.
      Will not give up!
  • thumb
    Feb 10 2014: Your explanation:

    "When you observe a particle, you have to shoot a photon at it, which "changes" it. That photon bounces back, passes on its information in a tag game manner, until the information reaches the observer's eyes and triggers a physical chain reaction in his head that is his "perception", which "changes" the observer."

    The original Copenhagen interpretation represented by
    the founders of quantum mechanics, Bohr and Heisenberg, is entirely ignored in your explanation.
    Before shaping up your idea of “communication in quantum entanglement” you need to study “Physics and Philosophy” written by Heisenberg himself.

    If in stead of physics (quantum physics) you choose to trust Neuroscientists’ such as Domasio or Seung and their “sensational” concepts on brain - this is entirely up to your choice.
    In this case please do Not use the terms of the original quantum theory in your own idea - you break the fundamental quantum concept.

    John Gribbin writes " became increasingly clear that the images and physical models that we use to try to picture what is going on on scales far beyond the reach of our senses are no more than crutches to our imagination.. "

    In order to move your theory from its suicidal stage - sadly! but as I’ve expected it does not stand on any real foundation, it's not even "based" on Seung’s theory of “I am my Connectome” or “Brain's Wiring" - you need to do lots of study. Very Sorry, no conversation you’re conducting here - you only express your unsatisfaction regarding my and other’s comments. You still do not say what your field of study is.

    My best wishes with your study!

    P.S. I'm a lifelong trained logician and researcher in a new field of epistemology, my work has been supported by contributors (many of them renown) from astrophysics and advanced nuclear physics to nuclear chemistry, microbiology and clinical psychology.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2014: Please explain, if you can - how do we observe branes in the first place? By our brains?

    or do you actually mean " G-brane and expanding M-brane.." What is "brane" if you say it Can be Really Observed?

    Thank you :)
    • thumb

      Anh Vo

      • 0
      Feb 7 2014: I don't understand why you the other commenter asked completely irrelevant questions. Brane is concept in physics. You can see the topics of the conversation.
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2014: Please do not be upset, Anh. I'm somehow familiar with (9 dimensional) string theory and as far as I know --- brane are only a trying-some part of the theory. This is a Theory and it can Not be really OBSERVED . But you tell us

        " if an observer can observe this Big Bounce event when the contracting G-brane and expanding M-brane bursting into two new branes, it would look like their contents have just swapped places."

        Then you express your theory "Therefore, I call this model the Hourglass. It can provide explanation for the existence of dark energy, dark matter, and faster-than-light communication in quantum entanglement."

        How can you explain your theory and what is your proof? Math or photos, or imagination?

        However, I agree with you on a "faster-than-light" concept , and never have a slightest doubt that the speed of light is not the limit of the world transformations.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: I am sure the scientists you know who study subatomic particles are very aware of the work of Werner Heisenberg, as that is fundamental to quantum mechanics, a subject required at both the undergraduate and graduate level for physicists.

          Their exposure to classical philosophy is likely varied. I have not met scientists I would consider illiterate in the way you describe.

          In any case, sometimes people mistake different-thinking for illiteracy, particularly when people work in different fields or from a different disciplinary orientation than they do themselves.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: I think you are talking about two different things here. I doubt there is much controversy that we cannot observe things as they are but only through the lens that our extended senses provide.

          Further, anyone actually working at the large hadron collider knows, I expect, that he/she cannot expect to see the particles through any device but only to detect their presence by signs of what these particles would do.

          Your interpretation of Heisenberg is, I believe, mistaken. in the sense that it is not the mental processing of observation that he asserts changes the phenomenon. But your interpretation is widely held within New Age communities, I have learned.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: I think many or most can accept that each person will tend to have his own worldview based on his experiences and that some conclusions he draws may be valid and others not. Different people will reach different conclusions, and more or less sound ones, based on the tools they use and their reasoning.
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2014: Anh, the reason people ask questions that are irrelevant is that they do not know enough about your subject to know what is relevant and what is not. There are few participants in TED Conversations with the scientific background to address your question as you intend it.

        If you want rigorous scientific discourse about your theory, you will more likely find it on a physics forum.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: Fritzie, you are a wise person but I just wish to make a special comment. Among my best friends are scientists who are involved in very advanced research of different nature, nuclear physics, thermodynamics, nuclear chemistry and microbiology. In my teens I had some training in the most tough science schools in europe. What made me change my decision about going along
          with thermodynamics I successfully studied at that time? I’ve witnessed childish naivety in scientific imagination about "the world" and ourselves in it combined with chocking illiteracy about the very nature of our own human mind - which is the unavoidable instrument we must use for perceiving, thinking, calculating, discovering and after all, composing our theories.
          My point is if our sciences that are taking over our postmodern civilization by storm tell us about discoveries about the universe based on freely misinterpreted, routinely edited images of “evidence” that appear under microscopes or through telescopes, they will continue creating theories that cannot fit any truly learned mind.
          The Government, a symbol of ignorance, provides its financial assistance to projects which are a grand failure before they start. For instance: a couple of my friends are involved in “running” a particle through those gigantic tubes in an enormous speed to “re-play” the “beginning” of our Universe!
          I’m happy to see that they finally have realized that What we 'know' about the universe tells us as much about ourselves and our peculiar sense-perceptions as it does about what we see as the universe. Much of what we learn about the universe is filtered through our senses and composed into our own scenarios of our reality Within our minds - not “out there” . This is the most fundamental knowledge that science schools obliged to offer.
          Philosophy from Heraclitus and Protagoras to Berkeley and then from Merleau-Ponty to great Werner Heisenberg shall be included in the main course.
          See below!
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: Philosophy from Heraclitus and Protagoras to Berkeley and then from Merleau-Ponty to great Werner Heisenberg shall be included in the main scientific course.

          Otherwise our postmodern mentality in spite of exploration of fancy technology and edited imaging, will keep recycling in old Descartes' time.

          There is a fantastic opportunity ahead - to see ourselves and our own nature in the most fascinating ways, discover more wise and more practical explanations of our human reality.

          Maybe Anh is a very young person with a good imagination. She can be easily mislead by
          older "experts" in those fields of great confusion and logical errors, staged, calculated and "proved" based on altered models.

          In my young years I wanted to put together my unusual experiment and prove that "the highest speed of light is actually thehighest speed of our perception of Sight, not the world". This was "too crazy" for my scientific mentors.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: But My friends did not pay much or even no attention at Heisenberg's Philosophy while working in their labs … The mixed results quantum physicists find when examining the same particle indicate that we just can't help but affect the behavior of quantum particles.

          One of Heisenberg major concepts should not be ignored in any work - the observer interacts with what he observes, which means, as I understand, an observer is changing its environment just by processing his own sensations in his mind and body.

          What I. Kant has pointed after Berkeley's thought is very "handy" here to mention -
          we cannot ever comprehend or even observe anything as it is - these are "things in themselves".

          Even though there are complicated machines like particle accelerators have been created -- and as believed they "remove" human physical influence from the process of accelerating a particle's energy of motion - the fundamental law of nature described by great Heisengerg cannot be "removed”. Perceiving means Changing, even if info comes from the “independent” machines.

          The process of our human perceiving is the most fascinating subject for me - endless discoveries in this new field are findamental telling us about our own nature and its hidden laws.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2014: My fault - did not explain more carefully.
          You probably see me as one of many outsiders of the field who have a loud tendency to discuss "Quantum Mechanics" as a proof for old idealistic/religious or “new age” mentality. And honestly, it just spreads ignorance.

          Unfortunately the interpretations suggested by the majority of physicists are not less ridiculous. I belong to neither kind.

          Heisenberg’s Philosophy with its outstanding implications in Sciences stands on ONE profound foundation - rooted in the new epistemology of physics. Our very peculiar human perceptions - our nature's tools without which neither physics nor any knowledge can be ever possible.

          Heisenberg was particularly fond of classical Greek. He was immersed in philosophy since he was very young, and did not Ever believe in physical existence "out there" as if it is our ultimate objective. He was also deeply religious - his own way.

          I do not blame anyone who only interprets this great mind in his/her way. He was not really understood by Max Born himself.

          I. Kant “Our reason has this peculiar fate that, with reference to one class of knowledge, it is always troubled with questions which cannot be ignored, because they spring from the very nature of reason, and which cannot be answered, because they transcend the powers of human reason.” Critique of Pure Reason.

          Growing up and fed on Greeks and classical thinking I'd suggest my idea - In order to exist as an individual creature everyone must create his/her internal reality from its unique interactions with its environment -- a mind is one's unique playhouse of impressions, thoughts and dreams. These are only realities we can observe. Our realities can be similar in nature but are never the same, and therefore, never objective, and cannot be repeated or copied. It is up to one's natural creativity how poorly or greatly one may see its internal creations, how intuitively helpful, or deadly misleading this reality may be.
      • thumb
        Feb 8 2014: NEW EGE COMMUNITY? Fritzie, Please spare me! Look, I just wrote - You probably see me as one of many outsiders of the field who have a loud tendency to discuss "Quantum Mechanics" as a proof for old idealistic/religious or “new age” mentality. it just spreads ignorance.

        New Age usually TWIST the meaning of what sciences already reveal or explain in labs, trying to "Prove" spiritual fantacies and metaphysical ideas using "quantum" and "string theory".

        I'm NOT "using" scientific discoveries and I'm not against them. On the contrary, I offer this new evidence in my research that brings quite breathtaking, proven facts/ discoveries, directly related to epistemology of physics, as well as it explains logical errors in scientfic thinking and in math logic. (something that B. Russell could not do) The nature of human perceptions is my field.

        This new approach to understand our naturally artistic mind behavior and thinking is supported by outstanding scholars, who see endless posibilities in it to develop our human thought, ethics, and technology.

        (I'm not going to continue commenting here - the topic above is not mine. The excited girl who suggests the Hourglass Model must be very upset still facing no admiration on ted, yet. My messgae was - If she wants to be important she has to learn what is beyond dark matter or dark energy, I mean learn how human perceptions put them together as images and ideas, before she decides to prove those )
        • thumb

          Anh Vo

          • 0
          Feb 9 2014: No wonder you are an artist and not a scientist.
          I'm not a scientist either so I'm not gonna go too far with my statements.
          "Human perception" indeed influences science, but probably not in the way you suspect.
          If you want to be an expert in that field you should have a degree in neuroscience or proof that you did rigorous study on that.

          When you observe a particle, you have to shoot a photon at it, which "changes" it. That photon bounces back, passes on its information in a tag game manner, until the information reaches the observer's eyes and triggers a physical chain reaction in his head that is his "perception", which "changes" the observer.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 7 2014: I guess that physicists are sometimes so very imaginative that they, as very passionate artists, want to turn their imagination into reality, for all of us.

      Proof? Photos or models are often involved, but these create even more doubts and questions..these are man-made, often rendered by artists, like those images taken by using Hubble telescope . Math cannot prove anything but just give us some very limited superficial description of models and concepts ( tons of logical errors are in math methods themselves)

      It's lovely that some scientists are fantasizing about the nature of the universe or even the world - but it is sad that sciences become the authority of truth and great knowledge these days.

      Illiterate in classical philosophy and not at all interested in learning about nature of their own human minds and their great limitations ( our minds are the very observers of the universe, and creators of scientific theories) our postmodern sciences tell us more about our theatrical human character than about some truth about the world.

      I so much hope that some day things will change for the better - but only if scientists will read and re-read original work/books written by W. Heisenberg - the most outstanding Philosopher of our time.

      Artistic imagination is a powerful thing leading to new discoveries, but cannot work without a merceless sense of logic and intuition. I wish Anh the best of the best in her work.
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2014: You may have better luck exploring a scientific question such as yours using online science resources. Some places you might try are the website for the Large Hadron Collider and the site for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

      Here is a TED talk on the subject:

      A couple of worthwhile books that are written by world-class physicists for the lay reader are one called The First Three Minutes ( and another called Warped Passages. These will include simply expressed expositions about dark energy and various theories about origins.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 9 2014: There was no problem in it, in my opinion. The questioner mentioned dark matter and dark energy, so your posing a related question about it was a natural thing.