Simple model of the early universe based on the proposed solution to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Background
Proposed solutions to the questions "Why do things exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" were presented in an accompanying paper (Granet, 2001). Based on these, the situation previously thought to be absolute “nothing” can be alternatively seen as an existent entity and in fact the most fundamental of existent entities. Because the universe is made of existent entities, it should be possible to use the properties of the existent entity previously thought of as “nothing” to build a simple model (first on paper and then using computer simulation) of the early universe. If this model matches observations and can make testable predictions that are borne out by observation, this is the scientific method. I think this type of scientific and visual evidence is the only way anyone can ever provide evidence for their answers to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Additionally, maybe this metaphysics-to-physics approach can help provide a deeper understanding of the universe than the top-down method used by physicists.
Because of time and knowledge (I'm not a computer programmer or physicist) constraints, I'd like to open up this project to others who might want to participate. This would be totally voluntary and unpaid. If you're interested, it's very important to read as background information the accompanying paper (Granet, 2001). So far, I'm mostly trying to work things out in my head but have also tried to learn the 3-dimensional computer modeling software HoudiniTM to do the computer simulation. Of course, the exact modeling software doesn't matter.
Before starting, a note of caution is: I think the basic ideas in the accompanying paper are right, and I'm thinking that most or parts of the model described here are correct, but, I am not wedded to them and neither should you be. If you can come up with a better but still rational, assumption-minimal, internally consistent philosophy and model that better explains why there is something rather than nothing and that more closely resembles reality and can make testable predictions, I encourage it. We should be looking for the truth and can't be stuck with one idea if it makes no sense, isn't internally consistent or doesn't resemble reality.
Why build a model?
1. Very few people, either academics or amateurs, take these ideas seriously. I've found out that people don't really listen to good, logical arguments and ideas about anything, and especially if these arguments conflict with their current views. From what I learned in my day job, the only way to convince people of something's worth and to make them take your ideas seriously is to show them visual evidence they can see and use. Because we can never step outside the universe to see why the universe exists, one of the few ways we can provide that visual evidence is to use the ideas for why the universe exists and what properties it has to build a model of the universe, see if that model accurately describes the universe, make a hypothesis based on the ideas and the model and use it to make testable predictions that will hopefully be validated by observation. This is the scientific method. Hard scientific evidence such as this that makes correct predictions is the only way anyone will ever listen. Otherwise, millions of people, all with their own ideas, will be arguing about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" forever.
2. The rationale for using metaphysical ideas to build a model of the physical universe is:
A. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of being and existence and of the properties of existent entities.
B. The universe "be"s and exists.
C. Physics is the study of the universe.
D. Therefore, the physical laws about the universe should be theoretically derivable from the metaphysical principles in step A
So, it seems logically undeniable that the laws of physics should be theoretically, if not easily, derivable from the principles of metaphysics. In fact, I think that applying this metaphysics-to-physics, or philosophical engineering, approach will allow faster progress to a deeper understanding of the universe than the top-down methods used by physicists.
3. Based on the properties of the existent entity previously known as "absolute nothing" that I've developed so far (see below), I've developed a very simple and preliminary mental and on-paper model of the early universe. However, the number of entities and the complexity of their interactions quickly increases and becomes very hard to do in the mind. Also, there seem to be several different possibilities for how the entities could behave and interact with their neighbors, and I can't rule them out based on logic alone. Because of all this, building a computer simulation of these entities and the different ways they might interact would be very useful to find which of the model variations, if any, leads to anything resembling reality.
4. Finally, providing evidence for an answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is just the beginning. One can then use this knowledge to invent things and help people. To do this, one needs to turn the philosophy into science and technology.
So, that's why I'm trying to model these ideas and why I encourage you to participate. Thank you in advance for working on this!
Model Basics (As of 10/24/2021)
I know some of the below will sound pretty speculative, and it is, but if you accept the basic premise that the most fundamental existent entity is what we used to call “nothing”, that this is the smallest possible entity, and about what a surface of a smallest existent entity would be (that it's a barrier to a next-to-the-surface that the surface creates, see below), I think it makes sense.
1. The existent entity previously thought of as "nothing", or "non-existence", is the smallest, and therefore the most fundamental, of all existent entities because there is nothing smaller than "nothing". This entity therefore contains no smaller component parts or subunits. As such, it must be the most fundamental of all existent entities and therefore the basic building block of the existent universe.
2. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole is present as a boundary or surface that defines what is contained in this unit whole (1). A grouping that ties stuff together into a unit whole implies that what is tied together is fully known. This implies that the surface is unbroken. A broken surface should not be possible for an existent entity because that would suggest that the what is tied together is not completelely known. So, the existent entity previously called "nothing" is the smallest possible existent entity (point 1, above) and is a complete, unbroken surface (point 2).
3. What exactly is a surface? We know from above that it's a grouping that ties stuff together and gives something existence, but what does this mean in physical terms? Is it the outermost layer of what is inside? Is it the very beginning of what is outside? Is it a combination of both? Is it some separate structure between the inside or the outside? This is a hard question in philosophy (Varzi, 2015), and it is especially hard when you're talking about the smallest possible existent entity, which is the entity previously known as absolute "nothing". The surface of this smallest, most fundamental of entities is the most fundamental of surfaces. It is the "primordial" surface. With this entity:
A. There is no inside because what's inside is absolute "nothing", so there are no smaller subunits or component parts inside. This entity is a surface with "nothing" inside, so the surface can't be the outermost layer of what's inside because "nothing" is inside.
B. The surface has no thickness because thickness implies that it's made of something. Because "nothing" is the lack of all "somethings", there are no somethings to compose the surface Also, there's "nothing" inside that it can be made of to give it thickness.
C. There is no separate structure called a surface because the definition of "nothing" was the supposed lack-of-all, including all surfaces. So, the surface is just the entiretyness, or the allness of "nothing".
Overall, the above says: the surface ties stuff together and gives substance and existence to the thing, but it isn't a separate structure, there's nothing inside the surface, the surface has no thickness What's left? I think that all that's left is that the surface is a delimiter, or barrier, to an "outside". That is, the surface must create the next-to-it, or the "outside", so it can be a barrier beyond which that outside can't go. Said another way, the surface is really the outside the surface creates with the surface being a barrier to that outside. While I don't think I can logically prove this, it seems to make sense because when we think of a surface, we're usually thinking about it from the mental perspective of being outside of the entity. That is, the surface of an object is the barrier to our entry from outside. For instance, we think of the surface of a ball, or the surface of a floor we're standing on.
One might object and say that I can imagine a surface/barrier with nothing inside and no thickness but that still exists and has no outside. Really? How? How can you imagine something with zero thickness? A surface/barrier with no thickness and nothing inside is only possible to imagine if there's an outside that it's a barrier to. Another objection might be that it just sounds too nebulous to say that the entiretyness/the allness of the "nothing" is a grouping/barrier that creates a next-to-the-barrier. But ask this: what is the surface of a "real" thing like a book? It's a bunch of paper and ink atoms. What are the surfaces of atoms? What are the surfaces of the electrons, quarks, etc. inside the atoms? Do you have any more idea what the surface of a "real" thing like an electron is besides just saying it's the surface? At least, an explanation for what a surface is (a grouping that ties things together into a unit whole, which in physical terms is a barrier and a next-to-the-barrier) is provided here.
As discussed above, for existent entities in the mind such as the concept of a car, the grouping that creates the entity is better visualized not as a physical barrier but as a mental label such as “concept of a car” that ties together the constructs contained within such as the concept of tires, the concept of an engine, the concept of the car body, etc. However, if one wanted to, one could consider the grouping that creates the “concept of a car” as a barrier to non-car mental constructs. The next-to-it that this barrier creates is what allows the mind to view the “concept of a car” from the outside as a unit whole and unique existent entity.
In sum, the surface of the entity previously called "nothing" is the grouping of what is tied together (e.g., “nothing” which is everything/the all) and is present in the form of a surface, or barrier, that creates a next-to-it, or an outside. This surface/barrier is almost like a dimensional barrier, where inside the surface, it's absolute "nothing", but from the outside, it is a "something". Also, there's no moving between the inside and outside.
4. In order to have real physical existence, an existent entity must have at least three dimensions. I cannot conceive of any physically existent entity that has either zero height, depth or length. If any one of these dimensions were literally absolute zero, the entity would not be there. A value of zero in one dimension prevents the other two dimensions from being present. For example, if a book had literally zero height, the depth and length wouldn't be there either because they'd be of zero height, so there wouldn't be a book. The book wouldn't be just flat, or very thin, but actually not there. Some might say that within the mind, it may be possible to imagine a "flat"-type entity where one of its dimensions is of zero size, but even there, I don't think this can really occur. When visualizing a flat entity, you're either visualizing it as very thin or just just visualizing the surface. But even if you think you could visualize this, because the mind would not be present in the case of "nothing" itself (and not the mind's conception of "nothing"), the existent entity that is "nothing" itself can't be just flat but must have three dimensions. This idea of needing three dimensions in order to exist was also mentioned by Descartes when he said “the nature of matter, or body considered in general, consists not in its being something which is hard or heavy or colored, or which affects the senses in any way, but simply in its being something which is extended in length, breadth and depth” (AT 9b:42/CSM 1:224) (Aitken and McDonough, 2020).
In regard to more than three dimensions, I guess it is possible that an existent entity could have more than 3 dimensions, but without evidence of this or the ability to visualize it, I see no reason to use more than three. If someone can show me where these extra spatial dimensions are, I might change my mind.
5. So far, the existent entity previously referred to as "nothing" is an unbroken three dimensional surface that has an outside or a next-to-the-surface. It contains no other information other than that it is three-dimensional. What does this imply about its shape? Because there is no information to define corners, angles, asymmetries or size differences in any of the three dimensions, the entity would be identical in all three dimensions. That is, it would be a sphere.
6. Given the presence of this first existent entity and its unbroken spherical surface with its next-to-it, as well as the initial assumption that all that has traditionally been thought of as existing is gone, what does this say about the next-to-it? Because all that is thought of as existing is gone, it means that the next-to-it is also absolutely "nothing". That is, the first "nothing", which is a grouping, or barrier causes there to be a new instance of "nothing" all around it, or next-to-it. As above, any new instance of "absolute nothing" is also an entirety/allness grouping and thus a spherical existent entity. And actually, in order to cover the entire surface of the first existent entity, many new instances of the "absolute nothing" existent entity are formed all around the surface of the first existent entity.
Because there's nothing present to distinguish these different "absolute nothing" existent entities, they should be identical to each other and to the initial "absolute nothing" existent entity. Once, the original spherical existent entity causes the formation of additional identical spherical existent entities all around its surface, these newly formed spherical existent entities will then cause the formation of yet more existent entities around their uncovered surfaces. This process will continue ad infinitum and will lead to an infinite expansion of concentric rings of identical, spherical existent entities, starting from a single, initial existent entity. For record-keeping purposes, I arbitrarily refer to the initial spherical entity as 0, the concentric ring surrounding 0 as layer 1 (with the entities in layer 1 called 1A, 1B, 1C, etc.), the concentric ring surrounding layer 1 as layer 2 (with the entities in layer 2 called 2A, 2B, 2C, etc.) and so on. The formation of these entities starting from a single initial entity is similar to the big bang and the expansion of space (creation of new units of space/location/existence) to form the universe. It is also similar in concept to a cellular automata in which an initial cell causes the formation of other cells. Except in this case, the cells are spherical entities, and the new cells form in three dimensions.
7. The spherical entities in layer 1 and each concentric ring should be tangentially touching each other and the entities in the layers below them, and not overlapping, because:
A. The spherical entities in layer 1 are what the "nothing" all around the surface of interior entity 0 look like from the outside (e.g., from the perspective of seeing the “nothing” as unit wholes/existent entities). And, "nothing" doesn't overlap with itself, so neither can the entities that are unit wholes of this "nothing". This means the entities are tangentially touching spheres.
B. These are spherical unit wholes with unbroken surfaces, so they can't overlap with each other. They can push against and compress each other, see below, but they can't overlap into each other's interiors. That is, their surfaces stay unbroken and intact. If they did overlap, that would mean that their surfaces were broken and that the "nothing" covering that point on the entity 0's surface would encode two existent entities. Two existent entities for one nothing doesn't seem to make sense.
8. Because the existent entities described here would be the most fundamental building blocks of our existent universe, each entity constitutes one unit of volume and one location in our universe.
9. More will be said about this in the Model Details section, below, but one might ask why the spherical entities in layer 1 and all the later layers form in the positions they do. But, this is the wrong way to look at this because there were no positions until after the entities are formed. That is, when an uncovered surface leads to the formation of new entities to cover it, one can't say ahead of time where these new entities will form because there are no locations until after they form. But, after the fact, humans, in mistakenly thinking that space is continuous, will think that these entities could have formed in any of a pre-existing, continuous range of positions, thus thinking that the formation of these entities was probabilistic. But, this forgets the fact that there weren't any positions (e.g., locations) at all, continuous or otherwise, until after the entities formed. So, the formation of entities isn't probabilistic, it just appears to be, after the fact.
10. If the central sphere, 0, is the existent entity formerly known as "nothing"; then, as mentioned above, it will cause the formation of identical, tangentially-touching, spherical entities (layer 1) around its entire surface. Mathematically, twelve identical, tangentially touching, non-overlapping spheres can almost cover the surface of a central sphere of the same size, but there will be a little space left over, although not enough to fit in a thirteenth sphere (Conway, 1999; Weisstein, 2021). So, in order to cover the entire surface of the central sphere 0, thirteen spheres are needed, but, as just described, there is not enough room to fit in all thirteen spheres without some overlap. Because none of these newly formed spheres would be favored, all would have an “equal right” to be there, and, thus, there would be potential overlap between at least two of the spheres in trying to cover that remaining little amount of surface of sphere 0. That is, most of the entities of layer 1 would be tangentially touching spheres, but at the point where there aren't enough to entirely cover the surface of sphere 0, there would be some overlapping spheres. But, because each of the potentially overlapping spheres would have to have an unbroken surface in order to exist (see above), this means that the two entities trying to occupy the same space would be compressed and would meet at an interface between them. Each of these two entities has a natural spherical shape when not overlapping, but each is being blocked by its neighbor from assuming this spherical shape. Thus, each entity would be trying to be in its natural spherical shape while being opposed by its neighbor. Trying to be in the natural spherical shape means the entity exerts pressure against the neighboring entities that are also trying to take their natural spherical shapes. This exertion of pressure would seem to be a natural source of energy in the universe. There has to be some physical reason for why there is energy (e.g., a force causing things to move or change shape) in our universe, and the above provides a totally natural and geometrical one. Additionally, physicists talk about symmetry breaking being important. This initial asymmetry in having compressed spheres at some position around layer 0 would be the very first symmetry breaking.
As more and more concentric rings of identical spherical entities (i.e., layers 1, 2, …, n) are formed, it seems likely that there will be areas of overlap and compression between spheres in and between all of these concentric rings.
11. As the compressed spheres exert pressure, or push, against their neighboring entities, this will allow them to uncompress and will cause the neighboring entities to both push against their neighbors and to start moving. They'll then press against their neighbors and start moving. This process continues ad infinitum. This is the reason things move in the universe. Because these spheres are the quantum units of space and location itself, this means that the units of space and location can move and flow, almost like a liquid, and actually like a superfluid. More on this is given in 11C, next.
Note: It's very important to remember that as a compressed entity change shape, it's not smaller parts of the entity (because these entities have no subunits) that are changing shape, it's the entity as a single unit whole that's changing its shape. This allows the spherical entities to change shape without getting entangled in Zeno's Paradox of smaller and smaller parts changing shapes. There are no smaller parts. It's the single entity as a whole that's changing shape. More on this will be said in point 12, below.
12. Notes about sphere uncompression and movement:
A. Imagine the compressed spheres in layer 1 from step 9, above. To make it simpler, suppose there are two compressed spheres, one on the left and one on the right. The interface between them should be a flat one because the compressed spheres are both equally trying to occupy the same area. For the sphere on the right, the flat interface is on its left side. As this sphere uncompresses, it will push out on its left at its interface, and this will lead to the right side being pushed out to the right. Remember that because the sphere is a single whole unit, as it pushes out on the left, the rest of the sphere changes shape with it and at the same time. Eventually, the sphere's left will have pushed out as much as it can against the sphere on the left, until the extension on the right balances out (in terms of distance from an overall spherical shape) and then the sphere's right side will be out of spherical shape. So, the sphere will change shape back to the left. This leads to a continuous jiggling of the sphere as it's always trying to regain its spherical shape. The jiggling is discussed in more details in the Model Details section, #1D.
B. As the sphere on the right, above, starts uncompressing and pushing against its neighbor on its right, labeled 2A for instance, because 2A is a single whole unit and is not compressed, then as soon as the uncompressing sphere pushes against its left side, the whole unit of sphere 2A gets pushed to the right. That is, because the spherical entities are single whole units and don't have subunits through which the force of being pushed must transfer, when the left side of an entity, like 2A, is pushed to the right, the whole entity moves concurrently with the push. They would also then push entities to their right at the same time. This would continue possibly forever. It's like when you hit one end of a line of pool balls, and none of the balls in the line move except for the last one. Except in the universe, the pool balls are the spherical entities. I'm still working on this, but one advantage of it might be that it gives a physical mechanism for entanglement.
C. The spherical entities act like a superfluid: Because these spheres are the quantum units of space and location itself, this means that the units of space and location can move and flow, like a liquid, and actually like a superfluid. The spheres have no subunits which means they have no protrusions to stick between neighboring spheres and impede their flow. Also, as mentioned in 11B, above, when a sphere pushes against a neighboring sphere, that neighboring sphere moves as a single whole unit. This makes the flow of the spherical entities, frictionless. Therefore, the quantum units of space/location/existence move like a superfluid.
13. More on the spherical entities are the single whole units with no subunits
A. There are no smaller entities than the spherical entities (because nothing can be smaller than "nothing"), so they contain no interior and no subunits. This means that the smallest possible measurable distance is the diameter of a sphere. One might object and say that as they compress and uncompress, parts of the sphere will become smaller than the diameter of the sphere, so aren't these parts smaller than the smallest possible distance? Yes and no because yes we can imagine that, but no because there are no "parts" of the sphere. We might picture parts of the sphere in our minds, but it's really the single entity as a whole that's changing shape. Also, as that entity as a whole changes shape, we are unable to measure the smaller distances this creates because any ruler we might use would have the diameter of a spherical entity as its smallest possible subdivision. This is analogous to the Planck distance in that we can't measure anything smaller than the diameter of the sphere even if that sphere changes shape and parts of it seem to be smaller in size.
B. An entity/surface is a single whole unit. It can be flexible as shown by its ability to be compressed when it initially forms, but it can also be stiff because as one part of the single whole surface is pushed against, the rest of the surface moves at exactly the same time because it's a single unit with no smaller subunits. It also seems possible that there could be a combination of some compression and some stiffness that occurs? I'm not sure. One advantage of the whole surface moving as a single unit (stiffness) is that when an entity is pushed against, this can lead to the instantaneous transfer of energy, which is similar to entanglement.
C. One might ask "If these entities are single whole units with no subunits, how can they compress and uncompress?. Doesn't being flexible require subunits?". But, remember, it's not just part of the entity that's changing shape, the whole entity is changing shape. This is the key. If the whole entity is doing it, this lets you it change shape despite its having no smaller components. And, because there are no subunits, it changes shape in a continuous manner. This allows the spherical entities to change shape without getting entangled in Zeno's Paradox of smaller and smaller parts changing shapes. There are no smaller parts. It's the single whole entity that's changing shape.
We have problems visualizing this because we're used to thinking of a part of a ball's surface changing shape. This might be true of a kickball or a balloon, but it is incorrect when the ball is the smallest possible existent entity. Overall, with these smallest possible existent entities that contain no further subunits, there's a weird combination of a discrete, quantum unit that can change shape in a continuous manner. The discrete and the continuous can both occur with these entities.
14. Expansion of space. As these entities move and/or change their shapes, some of their surfaces will become uncovered, which will lead to the formation of additional instances of "nothing" (i.e., additional spherical entities) right next to these uncovered surfaces. This is because the surfaces of these spherical entities create new instances of “nothing” next to them (see above). So, not only are additional entities (e.g., units of space/location/existence) being constantly created at the very edge of existence (the concentric layers of spherical entities, see above), they can also be created between the already formed entities as they change shapes and move and their surfaces get uncovered. This is a natural mechanism for how space can be expanding at all spots in the universe. That is, new quantum units of space/location/existence are constantly being created to cover the uncovered surfaces of other spherical entities. As above, most or all of these new entities will be compressed as they appear and so the process of shape changes (to form the natural spherical shape), formation of new entities and the expansion of space continues forever. This whole process could be the basis of vacuum energy and dark energy. I'd have to think about it a little more, but the above suggests one possible prediction: that the rate of expansion of space and amount of dark/vacuum energy will be larger in locations where more energy flux is happening; that is, where there's more energy and matter moving around in the form of entity shape changes and motions, which would cause more surfaces to become uncovered and thereby cause more new spherical entities to form.
15. Matter: Because matter and energy are related, matter must also somehow be a consequence of these shape changes, transferral of energy and motion. Because time is not assumed in this model to be present (in "nothing", there would be no time) from the beginning, it must also be a function of the shape changes and movement of the spherical entities; although, it might also be related to the ongoing formation of concentric rings of new spherical entities. This makes sense to me because it seems like time is just a consequence of things changing in the universe, and the shape changes and movements of the spherical entities provides a natural basis for this. This will be discussed in more detail below.
16. The spherical entities are quantum units of space, location and existence. Because the spherical entities are the quantum units of space, location and existence, as these entities change shape and and move relative to one another (see below), this means that the units of space and location are moving and fluid. Measurement systems and coordinate frames would be fluid as well and would change as the entities/quantum units of location change shape and move relative to one another. That is, location is relative and depends on how the spheres which compose a region of space are changing shape and possibly moving relative to the spheres in other regions. I think but am not sure that this may lead to things in relativity.
17. Summary of model basics: Overall, the above model suggests that our universe started with an initial single, spherical entity (i.e., the entity previously called “nothing”) labeled sphere 0, which was basically just a surface with “nothing” next to it. That is, sphere 0 caused the formation of new instances of “nothing” all around it. This new layer , labeled layer 1, of new spherical entities then caused new entities to form around its uncovered surfaces. This continues ad infinitum resulting in the formation of concentric rings of identical, discrete, tangentially touching spherical entities with each entity constituting one unit of existence, and one unit of location. These spheres don't form in a pre-existing coordinate frame or "space", but are instead what space and location are made of. Said another way, the spherical entities create the coordinate frame of space. They are the quantum units of space, location and existence. Because the spheres that are compressed in the concentric rings are trying to be in their natural spherical shape, they push against and/or bulge into their neighboring entities, which will then cause these to themselves change shape and/or move, which means they push into their neighboring entities. This transferral of energy from one entity to the next is the basis of energy and its transferral over distance. Also, as the compressed spheres try to regain their spherical shape, they end up jiggling forever in that effort. As the spheres change shape and move, their surfaces will become uncovered, which creates new instances of “nothing” next to them, so new spherical entities (i.e., what the “nothing” looks from the outside perspective) are always forming. This means space composed of the jiggling entities is expanding at all points throughout the universe.
Model details – More speculative (As of 10/24/2021)
1. Parent and child entities and more on how the spherical entities uncompress? As described above, some spherical entities will be compressed against their neighboring entities as all the entities are formed to cover an uncovered surface of yet another entity. There are several different possibilities for how the spherical entities might uncompress and try to regain their spherical shapes and interact with their neighbors. Each of these possibilities as well as different combinations of them have to be modeled to see which, if any, leads to results that most closely resemble reality. In the following, the term child entity means a spherical entity formed to cover the surface of another entity, the parent entity. If the child entity is compressed, some of the possible mechanisms of uncompression are:
A. The child entities are dependent on and can't leave the parent entities. This is because they were created as the next-to-the-surface of the parent entity's surface. If they are dependent on the parent entity's surface and can't leave this surface, this means that as they uncompress, they change into weird shapes because they can't leave the surface of the parent sphere. I don't favor this option but can't rule it out for now.
If the parent entity is itself compressed, and the child entities are dependent on and can't leave it, then as the parent entity changes shape, there are two choices:
) The child entities move with it.
) The next-to-it moves with it, but because it's moving, it can't form spheres while it's moving. Only once the parent entity stops changing shape can the child entities, as well as all the children of the child entities form into spherical entities. This type of model suggests that whenever a parent entity changes shape, all the subsequent child entities that make up the rest of the universe kind of go away and then reform after the parent entity stops uncompressing and reaches its new shape and While this would be the ultimate observer effect, it seems hard to believe. But, it does seem like a possibility.
B. The child entities are independent of the parent entity because the underlying "nothing" that is the basis of these child entities is right next to, but not bonded to, the parent sphere. In other words, the "nothing" right next to the parent sphere is just a new instance of "nothing" that was created by, but not connected to, the parent sphere. Because there's no direct connection, the child "nothing" entities can "do what they want." This leads to three more sub-possibilities for what occurs during uncompression:
1.) The child spheres uncompress fully and can leave the side of their parent spheres but don't keep moving because their only goal is to be in the spherical shape. We can't assume they keep moving.
2.) The child spheres uncompress and don't keep moving, but when they push out against their neighboring spheres, these neighbors, that are pushed, do keep moving. So, uncompressing spheres just try to reform their spherical shape and may jiggle (see below) but don't keep moving, but spheres that are pushed keep moving.
3.) The uncompressed spheres do keep moving, as do the spheres they push.
C. Jiggling: The idea of jiggling is that the surface of a spherical entity is always (or for a long period) changing shape and never getting to the perfectly spherical shape. I'm not sure if this happens, though, because as the entity uncompresses and gets closer to being in a spherical shape, the force of uncompression becomes smaller (if the force is proportional to the amount the shape is different from a spherical shape), but it may continue jiggling in ever smaller amounts but never quite reach the perfect sphere with no jiggling.
If an entity is compressed in an asymmetric manner to begin with, such as if it's compressed more to one side or something, then its jiggling will also be asymmetric.
Jiggling sounds similar to the idea in string theory that the strings or membranes (or surfaces in this model) are constantly vibrating and the way they vibrate causes them to be different particles with different properties like mass and charge. It also raises the idea of dark energy where the force exerted by a jiggling surface on its neighboring entities is the dark, or vacuum, energy.
2. Speed and force of uncompression: How fast do the spherical entities uncompress and how much force do they exert as they uncompress? Some possibilities are:
A. The spheres uncompress at the same speed no matter if they're more compressed or less compressed. This is because the only determinant of speed is that they're trying to reform their natural spherical shape. If this is true, then I think the force exerted by the uncompressing sphere on its neighboring spheres would be proportional to the amount of compression. This is because if the speeds are the same and the forces exerted by the spheres are the same, there would never be any change in the universe, so I think the force of the uncompressing sphere must be proportional to the amount of compression. This would also suggest that as the sphere uncompresses in an effort to reach its spherical shape, the force of uncompression would decrease as it gets less compressed.
B. The spheres uncompress at higher speeds for more compressed spheres than for less compressed spheres. This would also suggest that as the sphere uncompresses, the speed of uncompression would decrease. The force of the uncompressing sphere would be either:
1.) Higher for more compressed and therefore faster uncompressing spheres. That is the force of uncompression is proportional to the speed of uncompression.
2.) The same for more compressed spheres and less compressed spheres.
3. How does an un-compressing entity interact with its neighbors? As a sphere (say sphere 1A, numbering as described in Model Basics, #6) uncompresses and pushes into its neighbor (say sphere 2A) to the right of sphere 1A, does it:
A. Push sphere 2A to the right as a single inflexible unit? It might do this because as it pushes 2A on its left side, the whole surface of sphere 2A is also pushed to the right because, like all the spheres, it is a single unit whole with no subunits. This is what I think happens because there's no getting around the fact that as soon as 1A pushes 2A, all of 2A moves to the right because it's a single whole unit.
B. Push into and compress sphere 2A? It could do this because sphere 2A, like all the spheres, is a flexible, compressible surface. Once sphere 2A is compressed, it tries to reform its spherical shape. It might do this:
1.) Immediately, by 2A's surface shifting to the right to reform the spherical shape?
2.) Only after sphere 2A is compressed a certain distance, maybe half-way? At the half-way point, sphere 1A might start pushing sphere 2A to the right and not compressing it further.
C. A combination of A and B.
4. Spinning spherical entities: As spherical entity 1A, see above, pushes against its neighbor, 2A, to the right, 1A also interacts with the bottom of its neighbor, 2M, above it. I think this could cause 2M to spin in a counter-clockwise direction. As 2M spins, how does it affect the entities that are currently next to it? Does 2M's spin:
A. Drag them (e.g., move them) in the direction of 2M's spin? This might occur if the child entities next to 2M are dependent on and can't leave the parent entity, 2M.
B. Cause them to spin in the opposite, clockwise, direction from 2M?
C. Not affect them because the child entities next to 2M are independent of 2M?
D. A combination of A and B?
If 2M is both spinning and moving, it can cause new spherical child entities to form next to it as parts of 2M's surface becomes uncovered. How does 2M affect these new entities? Does it:
A. Cause them to move in the direction of 2M's spin because they were born moving in that direction?
B. Not drag them in the direction of 2M's spin? This might occur if the right-next-to-2M child entities are independent of the parent entity, 2M.
5. Matter: My guess is that particles of matter are either jiggling or spinning spheres. That is either the shape of the jiggling and how much an entity changes from the spherical shape during jiggling or the direction and speed of spinning are what determine the properties of matter particles. I think at least jiggling entities would not be able to move as fast as non-jiggling, totally spherical entities.
6. Time: Time is just a function of physical things happening (e.g., physical change) (Granet, 2017). If there were absolutely no physical change in the universe, there would be no time. This explains why time is moving irreversibly from past to future: because things keep happening. To go from future to past, there would have to be a reduction in the number of things, or events, that have already happened in the universe. This can't occur. Even if the events of a process look like they're happening in reverse, like a broken cup spontaneously reassembling, this doesn't mean that time is going backwards; it just means that additional physical events have happened that cause the cup to reassemble and that happen to look like the previous events going in reverse. But because physical change is still happening as the cup is reassembled, and the number of events is still increasing, time is still moving forward.
In regard to the current model, time is not assumed in this model because time wouldn't be there in "nothing" So, it must somehow emerge from the properties and interactions of the entities. Because time really means the change in time, it seems reasonable to infer that time is a function of changes in the entities such as:
A. The changes in shape and/or relative position of the entities that compose the universe.
and /or
B. The addition of concentric rings of spherical entities at the outer edge of those entities that already exist.
If the rate of change of time is related to the shape and motion changes of the entities, this suggests that the rate of flow of time in different parts of the universe could be different depending on the shape and motion of the entities in that area. This is similar to how the rate of flow of time depends on the speed of an observer. Another implication is that if the entities aren't changing shape much, the rate of change of time may slow down. If so, this also suggests that as matter moves closer to the speed of light, when time slows down, it may undergo fewer changes in the shape of the entities of which it's composed. This may be a testable prediction.
On a related note, physicists say that time is related to entropy or the amount of disorder in a system. Because entropy increases in the universe as a whole with time, physicists wonder why there would be very low entropy (disorder) at the beginning of the universe. But, this makes sense in the current model because if the universe started from a single existent entity which then proliferated to produce our current universe, there would have been a very low amount of disorder at the beginning of the universe because of the presence of only a single initial entity. As new entities are formed around it, and start uncompressing, the entropy increases and time flows. So, if time is based on physical change, or events happening, time would start with 0 and move constantly forward as the number of physical changes in these entities, or events happening, increases in the universe.
Finally, on a time-related issue that's not connected to the current model, many physicists think that just because they can change the sign of a variable in an equation describing a physical phenomenon that the physical process this variable describes should also go in reverse. That is, because they change the t (for time) variable on their paper from positive to negative, they think that time itself should be able to go backwards. But, just because they can do this on paper doesn't mean it happens in real life. In fact, if time is related to the number of events that have happened, one can't reverse the sign of t because this would indicate a reduction in the number of events that have happened, and this can't occur.
7. Relativity: Basically everything that occurs in this model are related to the shape changes, motion and formation (at uncovered surfaces) of new spherical entities. So, differences in these properties will be accompanied by differences in relative flow of time, matter and energy.
Another relationship to relativity is based on the idea that the existent entities that make up the universe are not only the quantum units of existence, they are the quantum units of location. That is, there is no space and no location until after these entities appear. And, as the surfaces of the entities become uncovered, new entities, and therefore new locations, are formed (space is expanding). This means that as the entities in a given region change shape and move, the locations and coordinate systems in that region are fluid and changing, too. As locations and coordinate systems change in a region, this results in measurements in those regions changing (contractions and expansions in length, measurements of time, etc.) relative to other regions in the universe. This means that an inch, for instance, may be of different lengths in different locations if the entities in those different regions are changing shape in different ways or amounts.
8. Quantum weirdness: In regard to quantum mechanics, the connections with this model might include the following. When an uncovered surface leads to the formation of new entities to cover it, one can't say ahead of time where these new entities will form because there are no locations until after they form. But, after the fact, humans, in mistakenly thinking that space is continuous, will think that these entities could have formed in any of a pre-existing, continuous range of positions, thus thinking that the formation of these entities was probabilistic. But, this forgets the fact that there weren't any positions (e.g., locations) at all, continuous or otherwise, until after the entities formed. So, the formation of entities isn't probabilistic, it just appears to be, after the fact.
How does this model explain non-locality and entanglement? Consider several existent entities in a row, labeled 1-4 from left to right. Because these entities are single unit wholes with no smaller components (i.e., they're the smallest possible entities), when the left side of entity 1 is pushed into by another entity (either due to that other entity movement or shape changes), this causes the right side of 1 to move at the same time. If entity 2 is 1's neighbor to the right, this force will also cause 2 to move at the same time. The same with 3 and 4 and so on. Thus, something occurring with entity 1 can instantaneously be transmitted to the rest of the universe, or at least the rest of the universe that's aligned with entity 2. It's kind of like pushing on one end of a stick and seeing the other end move at the same time. In the macroscopic world, it doesn't move at exactly the same time because the force of your hand has to be transmitted through somewhat elastic bonds between the wood atoms to the other end. But, at the level of the spherical entities, there are no component entities or bonds. The entities are right next to each other, and when one is pushed on, all the others are pushed at the same time. This needs a lot more work but could explain the idea of instantaneous entanglement.
9. Cosmology: The model described here seems to have many connections to current theories in cosmology. The first one is that if existence (e.g., the universe) started with a single existent entity that then underwent continuous expansion, this sounds similar to the big bang model. A second connection is that the model described here provides two natural ways in which space can be expanding:
A. Concentric rings of spherical entities are always being added at the uncovered surfaces of the outer ring of already existing rings of spherical entities. So, the universe is always expanding in size at its outer edge.
B. As the entities change shape and possibly move and their surfaces become uncovered, new entities are formed to cover their uncovered surfaces. This means that space itself (e.g., the entities) is expanding throughout the universe. As mentioned previously, one possible prediction (but I'd have to think about it a little more) is that space expands more quickly in areas where there is a lot of energy/matter flux.
C. After the initial entity, sphere 0, forms, the 13 tangentially touching spheres in layer 1 will be created to cover its entire surface. The point at which the 13th sphere can't quite fit in will cause there to be compression of the spheres in that area. This is an initial asymmetry in that this will occur at one position (which is not known until after the entities form) relative to sphere 0. When layer 2 is created, this initial asymmetry in layer 1 may serve as a nucleation site allowing additional spheres to be compressed in layer 2 at that same site. This will then lead to spheres to be compressed in layer 3 at that site and so on. Because compressed spheres, in trying to assume their natural spherical shape, cause energy, this will lead to some positional asymmetry in energy and matter distribution in the early universe. Because this energy is transmitted through all the other entities and causes them all to change shape and move, this asymmetry may not be major, but it might be enough to cause the asymmetry called the "axis of evil" spotted in maps of the cosmological background radiation.
Conclusions
To conclude, one of the nice things about the whole idea that the entities that make up the universe are the existent entities that were previously and incorrectly called "absolute nothing" is that it seems to naturally explain a lot of things that are present in the universe. It provides a purely geometry-derived mechanism for why energy is present, explains why space is quantized, how space can expand at all points, how the universe could have started in a big bang like enlargement from a single low-entropy location, why location and time are relative, entanglement, etc.
However, even if you don't agree with the initial idea that the entities that make up the universe are the existent entities that were previously and incorrectly called "absolute nothing", it still seems that with any philosophical explanation for the origins of the universe, there must be some initial entity from which reality springs. Some might call this entity "the laws of quantum physics" or "consciousness" or whatever. While these other philosophies don't explain why these entities exist like the "nothing" idea does, they do presume an initial existent entity. If this entity were not flexible, there would never be any change or energy in the universe. Also, it seems like there must be some mechanism to create or divide the initial entity into additional entities because we live in a universe with more than one entity. If you don't know anything about these entities other than a name for them, there would be no information to cause corners or angles to form, suggesting that the entity is a sphere. In other words, as long as there's an initial entity at the heart of existence, one can derive many of the same basic ideas of the model presented above.
Overall, thank you in advance for working on this on your own time and expense!
References
Aitken, A. and McDonough, J. K., "Somethings and Nothings: Śrīgupta and Leibniz on Being and Unity." Philosophy East and West, vol. 70 no. 4, 2020, p. 1022-1046. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/pew.2020.0074.
Conway, J.H. and Sloane, N.J.A., Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups 3rd ed., (Springer-Verlag: New York, 1999), especially p. 21.
Granet, R. (2001) Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? Retrieved April, 2017 from https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
Granet, R., (2017) Miscellaneous Ideas on Time, The Relativity of Time and Location, The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Math at Describing the Universe and Other Things, Retrieved August, 2018 from https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/time1
Varzi, Achille, "Boundary", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/boundary/>.
Weisstein, Eric W. "Kissing Number." From "MathWorld"--A Wolfram Web Resource, Retrieved October, 2021 from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KissingNumber.html