Posts Tagged ‘MOND’

Galactic M-Sigma Relation and the Anomalous Stellar Velocity Dispersion

June 4, 2012

Galactic M-Sigma Relation and the Anomalous Stellar Velocity Dispersion

Inverse gravitational decline versus inverse square decline

Analyzing the implications of a black hole singularity with near infinitely tight curvature close to the center and what this means to the mathematical form of the gravitational field, one concludes that a postulated singularity requires that black hole gravity declines as 1/r, not as 1/r^2. This effective “infinitely” deep gravitational “point-mass” geometrically implies a hyperbolic gravitational field profile. So, the concept has some bizarre twists.

But, general relativity does not permit a 1/r gravitational field in 3-D + t spacetime. However it does allow a hyperbolic field in 2-D + t spacetime. By GR, gravitational force must decline as 1/r^(n-1), where n = spacial dimensionality. If n = 2, gravity declines as 1/r. So, it is also posited (postulated) that there exists a 2-D, sub-event horizon, hyper-spinning, centripetally induced, infinitely broad disk singularity in all central galactic SBHs. Having mass probably concentrated nearer to the singularity center but being of spacetime in nature, the entirety of the disk singularity is immune to the event horizon of the black hole. It can therefore extend outward to far beyond the galactic rim even to nearby galaxies within a cluster or supercluster.

This 2-D gravitational field is also quantum renormalizable. It is well known that items in a 3-D space can be projected perfectly onto a 2-D surface – the holographic principle. Might this be a simple route toward validatable, falsifiable quantum gravity? It is interesting to contemplate that a supermassive central BH with its coterie of inner bulge orbiting stars may be a quantum object obeying quantum law.

This postulated set of logical statements is immune to criticism. If otherwise logical, it cannot be argued against. It must be experimentally tested. Observation is the only choice to conclusively validate or falsify such an argument. See the definition of “postulate” given below.

Definition of a Postulate

• A Postulate is assumed to be a true statement, which does not require to be proved.

• Postulates are used to derive other logical statements to solve a
problem. If a problem is thereby solved, especially if proven by
other data, the postulate must also be true.

• Postulates are also likened to axioms.

In other words, postulates are to be accepted at face value “for the sake argument” for whatever they may be worth as if they were indisputable axioms. THEN, if a whole argument containing such postulates actually works, there may be much joy. If not, it is back to the drawing board.

Newton’s law of gravity and Kepler’s laws are all easily adjusted to accommodate the hyperbolic 1/r G-field in two dimensions plus time. Kepler’s 3rd law in 2-D is derived from 2-D Newton analogously to the 3-D derivation. It is NOT the same result as if orbiting 3-D objects were limited to an Euclidean plane.

The G-field diagram is hyperbolic when its equal gravitational force contour lines are drawn with spacing in such a way that a 1/r relation is followed to the origin where spacing approaches zero. If the contour lines are then plotted having a z axis, Flamm’s hyperboloid is the result. This is a spacetime diagram, not a gravitational potential diagram.

No inner galactic bulge stellar orbits need be fitted to raw Kepler. Kepler does not define these orbits. Kepler’s laws are used merely to analyze them. The orbits are what they are. Kepler’s 2nd law applies no matter what the form of the central force. The “adjusted” Kepler’s 3rd law follows exactly from Newton’s law of gravity with reduced dimensionality according to GR. It is “adjusted” Kepler that should be used to compute central galactic supermassive black hole mass. See the Gary Kent post on WordPress.com.

There is nothing more to prove. What there is still to be done is to compare with observation.

Mathematically, the constant velocity distribution observed in spiral galaxies is explicitly derived. This means that the M Sigma relation is explained because peripheral stellar v = (GM/r*)^½. Also, Milgrom’s MOND constant, “a[o]”, is derived, where a[o] = GM/r*r[∞] = v^2/r*r[∞]. This implies that the universe must have a finite or maximum r because a[o] is an observed finite non-zero quantity. And, M, the black hole mass, may include the masses of many tens of thousands or more of very large stellar mass black holes that are thought to be embedded in every galaxy. The unit vector of r, r*, is used to maintain dimensional integrity.

No modification of Newton’s law is required. But, Newton must be regarded in the context of a 2-D hyperbolically curved spacetime. So, gravity for black holes declines as 1/r and is not an inverse square relation.

All the other effects that have been observed that have been traced to Dark Matter are also explained in this way. These include the anomalous velocity dispersion in spiral galaxies and in clusters, the weak gravitational lensing, the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich, the Sachs-Wolfe and the Bullet Cluster effects.

The hyperbolic G-field parsimoniously explains these phenomena without appeal to any unfalsifiable hypotheses of exotic dark matter. Weakly interacting massive particles and other alien perpetrators of Dark Matter effects have been researched avidly for a very long time. They must be regarded now as unfalsifiable hypotheses because it has become clear that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence or it would have been done by now.

The hyperbolic SBH singular ultra-spin disk G-field might have mass, perhaps like Alan Guth’s inflaton field in the false vacuum. Its mass, but not its hyperbolic gravitational spacetime configuration, could be confined to below the event horizon. The horizon itself could be greatly distorted – including any surrounding plasma or photon sphere. So, a photon passing through the expansive hyper-spin singular spacetime disk would experience therein an enhanced gravitational field, just as if it had passed through a Dark Matter “halo”.

The open cell foam, network or spiderweb structure of the large scale universe is also explained by the extensiveness of the hyperbolic field and its form as a 2-D saddle shape “hyperboloid of one sheet” embedded in 3-D space. Galaxies and galactic clusters will be expected to align so that the hyperbolic surfaces of their 2-D fields tend to coincide. So, even the initial structure of the nascent universe would be influenced by supermassive BHs therein which could have formed very quickly at that time.

They might have been there from t = 0 + an instant, for all we know. After all, if the inflaton particle was like an unstable subatomic particle, it may have decayed into smaller particles including many SBHs. Some have said that the inflaton particle must have decayed all at once. Under these extreme initial conditions, what experimentally validated physical law or fundamental principle is quoted thereby? So, it decays all at once. To what?

In short, the hyperbolic 1/r SBH galactic G-Field explains all the phenomena that have ever been traced to Dark Matter. The hyperbolic G-field IS Dark Matter. Its potential energy profile is generally higher than the profile of an equivalent inverse square G-field. Since m = E/c^2, it accounts for the unseen and unseeable missing mass of Dark Matter. The HBHG field is mathematically derived rigorously and satisfies the mathematical requirements of all observations.

I have written a paper on gravitational decline with distance, but I need a reviewer to help check my mathematics. kentgen1@aol.com

The Hyperbolic Black Hole Galactic and Universe Gravitational Field

February 4, 2012

The Hyperbolic Black Hole Galactic and Universe Gravitational Field

Figure 1   Proper Time versus Scale Factor a(t) or Hubble Distance, R and also versus Potential Energies, Expansion Velocity, and Acceleration with Dilated or Reduced “Root” Time or “Relativistic Time”

http://www.fotothing.com/Gak/photo/f7c4dd2a76b88a78fa2f590a8751b883/ 100/92-100

 image #100 in this series

http://www.fotothing.com/photos/f7c/f7c4dd2a76b88a78fa2f590a8751b883_fa2.jpg

image enlargement

Graph computed from equations given in Fig.2 for Hubble expansion of the universe in extensive units. With a proportional overlay of the associated potential energy state diagrams.

                Busy, Busy, Busy

This overly complicated ugly graph is really quite simple. The “underlying” set of curves, for which the legend applies, are composed as below and in

https://garyakent.wordpress.com

 First:

The “underlying” set of curves, for which the legend applies, are composed as follows:

1.) The straight black diagonal line represents expansion of the universe if it had occurred at the speed of light.

2.) The green curve represents the exponential expansion of the universe according to equation 3 against proper time, t, and the extensive variable R, below. It rises almost straight up at very very small values of t, then rises more slowly, nearly leveling off; then it rises again at a more sedate rate after about 2×10-14 u (time in geometric or natural units).

3.) The deep red curve refers to the slope of (2.), the velocity of expansion, i.e. the first derivative in units of U/u. It declines very steeply from an apparently infinitely high level very very early, passing through a minimum at extremely small t = 2×10-14u, whereupon it rises monotonically as shown. This is a unique and very fortuitous feature of this relation.

4.) The purple curve is supposed to represent the acceleration of (3.), i.e. the second derivative.

5.)  The sky blue curve represents “root time”, “reduced time” or “relativistic time”, t1, the (inverse e)th root of proper time, t where t1 = t(1/e)

An unexpected interaction between t1 and the rest of the exponential form produces a fortuitous minimum in expansion velocity, dropping to near zero when t is very small (which occurs much too close to the origin to show), which is a crucial feature of this graph (see the relevant plot in the image series, #97 at Gak on FotoThing.com).

This is due to the odd way that exp(B*t1) behaves at very small t. Otherwise there would be no time for the essential equilibration of temperature and density that is postulated by Alan Guth’s theory. Without such a peculiar minimum in the rate of expansion, because of how t1 works, there would be no initial exponential induction period as is assumed by Guth. If the parameter, e, is adjusted so that Hubble expansion decelerates overall, having negative or concave curvature, no such minimum in the expansion rate occurs at small values of t.

The curve (5.) is the key to the exponential equation and is the secret of why it works. Perhaps this reduced or root time may represent how proper time is vastly dilated especially as it rises from an ultra-massive physically real singularity at our initial proper time, when t = 0. For the inflaton particle is postulated by Guth to be a humongously strong gravitational point particle in the meta-time of a multiverse.

Now, this curvature parameter, e, can be adjusted to describe an open, flat or closed universe. It can be adjusted to show much less curvature or much more. So, the position and duration of the minimum that occurs very early for curve (3.) can be modulated.

But, changing parameters A or B will make (2.) completely miss passage through the point (1,1) on the graphical grid. This would not work at all because the universe with all its matter and energy must have mass/energy M == 1 µ at t = 1 u. So, here is another label for the abscissa.

When the vertical axis is interpreted as being the scale factor a(t), then the horizontal axis must be interpreted as having proper time t = 1u = 27.44 billion years (at least) because from the time of emission of light that became the CMB, to 13.72 billion years (until now, the Hubble time), our universe has expanded another 13.72 billion years (at least). If we insist that the horizontal axis t = 1u = 13.72 billion years, only the Hubble time itself, then the Hubble distance is only 13.72 billion light years or R = 1 U on the vertical axis.

Note that herein R = r, interchangeably. It does not matter how the axes are interpreted as long as one remains consistent.

The author worries that expansion velocity accelerates beyond the speed of light too soon. After over half of the universe lifetime from this point, by now we should have lost contact with the CMB. This can probably be fixed by choosing the parameter, e, so that the curvature of expansion in (2.) is rather a lot shallower. This should also move the point where its slope exceeds c by quite a bit to the right. Then, its effect could be viewed as being more benign.

According to Guth and the consensus of cosmologists and other astrophysicists who truly respect Inflation Theory, the universe was once a purely quantum entity. It still is. The very success of quantum theory is evidence that ours is a quantum universe. Why should the universe not follow a mathematically defined trajectory like this?

Second:

Overlain upon this graph is another graph with three more curves, a black, an orange red and a bright blue one.

orange red: the curve for potential energy (P.E.), from a graph of y = ln(x) representing the integral of 1/kr, where k = 1 m and x = r = t, representing either the Hubble time or the actual age of the universe (more or less).

Here, y is the vertical axis which is to be read as P.E. of the “inflaton” (or galactic) hyper-excited gravitational field or as whatever else may be the correct quantity, in natural units, depending upon which curve one is reading. Ideally, this ln(x) integral denotes the initially (near the origin) extremely high relative P.E. condition of the hyperbolic ultra-massive black hole gravity.

Hyperbolic gravity fields are allowed by GR if proper assumptions and boundary conditions are posited to find a metric, much like the Schwarzschild metric, for the space wherein is assumed to reside a singular black hole.

That is, this curve represents the “state” of the universe’s initial hugely massive “inflaton” point particle and its associated “inflationary” hyper-excited renormalizable 1/kr gravitational field. Every field always has an associated particle, so there would have been an inflaton particle and it should have been an hyper-massive or “excited” quantum point particle already possessing that “renormalizable” higher energy hyperbolic gravitational field. How could it have been else in the Everett multiverse which Guth explicitly posits?

Now, there is no question that, if one accepts Inflation Theory then, one must accept the multiverse and meta-time.

The author compares the implied transition from an evolving higher energy gravitational field state toward a changing ground state to a time dependent quantum transition or to a Tanabe-Sugano diagram in transition metal ligand field theory.

B.)   black: the curve from y = -1/x, the lower energy P.E. state of the universe under the ground state of its normal gravitational field, which was proportional to 1/r2.

P.E. being the vertical axis now, as in (A.), it is equal to -1/x or -1/r or -1/t (because the scale has r = R = t = 1 since this is all in natural or geometric units). The ln(x) = ln(r) = ln(t) curve and the 1/x = 1/r = 1/t curves have been translated so that P.E. (A.) = P.E. (B.) when ordinate x = r = t approx. = 0.34 and then the whole graph was re-scaled and vertically re-positioned to fit other abscissa or P.E. versus t constraints.

Originally, this point was (1,0) or the intersection of both curves, where

ln(x) = 0 and

-1/x +1 = 0

got from a pair of equally scaled graphical curves adapted from figures in a textbook definition of the natural logarithm.

This was not an arbitrary adjustment. It was done so that the orange red ln(x) curve approaches the origin at the same time that the sum of the (A.) orange red, and (B.) black, curves equals the bright blue curve of (C.) as it passes through the point (1,1).

Then, the intersection of (A.) & (B.), at the bright green circle, which used to be at the point (1,0), had to be translated so that its position with respect to the underlying Hubble time axis corresponded to 0.344 u, or 9 billion years ago in Hubble time, when the universe is seen to have begun to “re-inflate”, consistent with observations of “acceleration”.  So, there is only one way that the overlay curves could have been re-scaled and repositioned to meet these constraints.

bright blue: the superposition or linear sum or mixture of the gravitational potential energy states represented by curves (A.) and (B.).

Now, as was said before, (C.) had to be made to pass through the point (1,1) on the underlying graphical grid. That is, the total P.E. had to equal all the matter and energy in the universe at t = 1, the present, including “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”, so that M == 1µ at t = 1u. So, total mass/energy M is yet another label for the abscissa.

The orange red curve in (A.) is identified with Dark Energy, and it is seen to keep on increasing into the future while the associated scale factor, which is to be read on the abscissa as R or a(t) in this case, also increases. Then, with these simultaneous increases, the P.E. density of the universe remains constant as is indeed postulated for Dark Energy.

At the instant of the BB, the hyperbolic inflationary gravitational inflaton field of the inflaton point particle had a potential energy curve that would have looked like the orange red curve in (A.) but, no matter/energy had yet had a chance to follow this P.E. curve at the instant that the BB occurred. And, afterward it might have been forced to follow the black curve in (B.). The matter/energy in the universe could not actually experience any of the individual states represented by (A.) or (B.) but could experience only the superposition of states in (C.), bright blue.

Still, it is all consistent. The orange red P.E. curve continues to increase as it should and the black P.E. curve becomes “nearly” constant as it must while the bright blue total P.E. curve increases as the energy density of the universe must remain constant, just as theory demands.

See? Simple. (Yuk! Yuk!)  By comparison, this should make filing an income tax-return seem like a piece of cake.

This is what time dependent quantum transitions mean. This is what the multiverse means. We can experience only the final resultant of the waveform vector sets for all terms in the total probability density wave sum. We experience only the superposition, not the separate states.

Yet, some cosmologists describe Inflation Theory minus the point particle concept and sans a multiverse with no meta-time and also without the implication that the inflaton field must be an excited renormalizable gravitational field with its associated hyper-massive particle. So, the quantum nature of Inflation seems foreign. One can pick and choose the ideas one likes only in regard to congressional legislation in a hidebound committee but, Inflation Theory will never become that kind of law.

If the hyperbolic black hole gravitational field can be validated and extended to the entire universe this way, then we would have hard evidence for a kind of a multiverse.

Figure 2   Rules Sheet from TK Solver Plus for the “e-Model” of Inflationary Expansion of the Universe

The graphical series in Fig.1 was computed using the equations presented in this rules sheet.

#98 A  Equations for the mathematical model of inflationary Hubble expansion of the universe according to extensive variables.

 98 A  universe accelerating hubble expansion guth inflation

http://www.fotothing.com/Gak/photo/dd3000c76d3f16f595af18ef135cfad2/ 98/92-100

image 98A  in this image series

http://www.fotothing.com/photos/dd3/dd3000c76d3f16f595af18ef135cfad2_fab.jpg

image enlargement

This is the rules page from a UTS TK Solver Plus math program that was used to plot the exponential expansion curve shown in image 96. It depicts acceleration of Hubble expansion, the 1st and 2nd derivatives of this curve as well as a straight diagonal line showing a baseline of what expansion would look like if it occurred at the speed of light. Image 95, at FotoThing.com under Gak, shows a minimum in the 1st derivative curve, the expansion rate. The rate drops to near zero, indicating an extreme slowdown in expansion that constitutes a virtual pause at around 1^-14 to 3^-14 u or “universe time”, time in “natural units” or “geometric time”. This period lasts around 2 x 10^-14 u or 8,660 seconds (144 minutes) but is sensitive to somewhat arbitrary initial conditions like those chosen by Alan Guth in his first paper on inflation. This pause may have come earlier or later and lasted longer or shorter depending on these initial conditions. Such changes would have to be pairwise and in the correct sense or else the intersection with (1,1) will be lost.

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy

December 14, 2011

Should we mean “the universe” or “the meta-verse” or “the multi-verse”? (Hugh Everett)

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of “inflaton” point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r^2) one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower potential energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the (1/r) potential energy mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining (1/r) potential energy is called Dark Energy.

It accounts for the “missing mass ” in audits of universe contents and provides a convenient, theoretically rigorous and parsimonious basis for “acceleration”. Dark Energy could account for around 80% of the universe’s total mass, but audits are not so accurate. Still, The Mainspring still has enough oomph to last for at least another 140 billion years more!

The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of a Pauli exclusion principle.

There has been some confusion. So, let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).

If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

We can get an estimate of a value for ho from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.

The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.

Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:

Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed this inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward “R” ? May be lower case Cyrillic “r” ?

The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. Plot a graph yourself on the back of an envelope! Use mass M = 1, the smaller mass drops out for acceleration. And, assume G is any self consistent constant like G = 1. This is just for comparison purposes, so it matters not. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. (You have just DERIVED modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND!) You must multiply r by the constant k = 1m (Systeme Internationale) for dimensional purity.

The current state of the universe itself may be considered as being in this (1/r) exponential decay dormancy or plateau period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while very slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

The black-hole rotational acceleration connection implies that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now. But, we cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell. From the standpoint of general relativity, we simply cannot tell from our perspective her and now.

Yet, in other words, even with acknowledged acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

By the way, “M Theory” doesn’t exist. M Theory is just an “ideal”. Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositiions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing both to merge. What’s the hurry? Let true “M Theory” and “Brane theory” grow organically out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.

Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called “Doctors of Philosophy”, Ph.D.    Doctorae Philosophi.    I took Latin for three years and I am still not sure of this. German and Russian too, but this is no help. What happened to my old Latin grammar texts?

Gary’s Blog

April 1, 2010

Stephen Hawking cannot say whether God exists. All he can say is that there is no need for us to assume that He does.

Try this scenario on for size:

The existence of the universe is accounted for by the postulates of the inflationary Big Bang. Alan Guth mathematically defines an “inflaton” particle that was a child of a highly excited gravitational field. This extremely excited and energetic inflaton particle, being much like an excited radioactive nucleus in an atom or an excited particle in a particle accelerator machine, had to decay eventually. When it did so, matter and energy, in types that we know, were formed. The inflaton particle was a point-particle, that is, a point-mass having mass, gravitational potential energy and all other types of energy equivalent to the matter and energy that we can tally today all rolled up inside.

For a black-hole F = GMm/kr, k = constant = 1m (SI System), for dimensional purity. The inflaton particle possessed a hyperbolic 1/kr  gravitational field with gravity existing prior to the big bang. The prior existence is said because we live in a multiverse (See followers of John Archibald Wheeler)) and the inflaton was only one of many such particles that existed and do still exist in the meta-universe (see Hugh Everett).

The big bang happened. And, it will happen again for other inflaton particles and has already happened in many others of them, long “before” our inflaton decayed into our universe. In other words, we must postulate “meta-time” as well.

Since the gravitational field existed prior to decay of the inflaton, gravity being “leaky” (George Dvali, Lisa Randall), overflowing boundaries like those associated with an infinitely dense, infinitely intense gravitational field stemming from a point-mass, it had such a hyperbolic 1/kr potential profile. When the inflaton decayed, the 1/kr field began to collapse. It is still collapsing, transitioning to the 1/r^2 gravitational field that we see today. On a graph, we see that the equivalent hyperbolic potential energy curve is inherently greater than the equivalent 1/r^2 parabolic curve. So, the continuing collapse of the hyperbolic 1/kr field releases energy into the visible universe. The only way this energy can be manifested is by means of the expansion of spacetime.

This expansion is kinematically equivalent to our having all the discrete objects in the universe rushing away from each other. Most of the time, we should think about expansion kinematically to avoid confusion.

Now, a graphical look at hyperbolic exponential decay reveals that acceleration of expansion may still be occurring slowly, but it should be happening at an infinitesimally lower and lower rate (after all, expansion has been progressing for 13.72 billion years already and the manspring should have wound down quite a lot by now). This potential energy, bound up in the remaining remnant of the hyperbolic gravitational field, is real energy (with mass equivalent via E = mc^2). It accounts for the “missing mass” of the universe and the accelerating rate of expansion without invoking any new forces like quintessence.

The unique role of gravity in this scenario is a key. You might say that gravity is the only true force, all other forces being derived from it, and its status is fixed by this role. It is such a weak force and cannot easily fit into quantum theories because of its status as the “Ur” force. (Ur was the first true city in Western civilization).

This scenario is hypothetical, to be sure. But, it is no more speculative than Alan Guth’s original formulation of “Inflation” as a solution to the various paradoxes of the Big Bang theory. There is “speculation” and there is speculation. Some intriguing speculation is more robust and worthy than other kinds.

At any rate, we see here that there is no need for God in accounts of the origin of the universe. This does not mean that there is no God. But, if He exists, He must be infinitely bigger and more powerful than anyone ever thought. He presides over a multiverse, not a mere universe, and He has made meta-time as well as standard time. He must be truly almighty.

Gak