Singularity is just the name for things we don’t understand

Physicists agree: infinity means that something happens that we don’t know how to describe

“I would say that the greatest problem is understanding better the black hole interiors. In the black hole interior, the space curvature becomes infinite. That infinity means that something happens that we don’t know how to describe. So if you don’t know what this means, we don’t know either. We don’t know what happens at the singularity. So singularity is just the name for things we don’t understand.” — Juan Maldecena

I’ve been testing out new AI transcription tools, which so far have not worked very well for me. I ended up downloading the YouTube transcript, which is better than usual. I only had a few corrections to make, but it created a formatting nightmare. And unfortunately Google Docs has limitations that turned this into a lot of work, so I decided to go ahead and publish it. I hope Curt Jaimungal doesn’t mind.

Geometry as Entanglement, and the Emergence of Spacetime

CAVEAT: Publication is not my endorsement of any of the standard physics model’s entities and concepts.

I don’t believe in black holes, wormholes, singularities, non-Euclidean space-time, point particles, or fundamental forces as they are widely accepted. However, I do agree with Juan Maldecena and many other physicists who have been hosted by Curt that these monstrosities are inevitable artifacts of an incorrect geometry. I think I know what it is, but it’s so alien, it’s going to take me a while to communicate it. I’m probably going to eventually have to teach myself how to develop a completely new algebra just so that a few people will take it seriously. I don’t have my own theory of everything that I’m ready to publish, but at least my starting point is supported by these kinds of statements. The geometry is wrong, and no one has been able to figure out what it should be.

This and many other transcripts are being dumped into my NotebookLM to help me keep track of the many statements that support my contentions that:

Space and time have no independent existence, but they define motion, which is observably real.

There is no Cartesian “container space” or arena of space-time.

The most fundamental motion is not vectorial, which requires a coordinate reference system imposed to define it, but is scalar: inward and outward (contraction and expansion). The inflating and deflating balloon is the object model, without any casual reduction of dimension.

Scalar motion is only definable between any two objects. A displacement of distance between them does not require imposing a one-dimensional vector, or defining a space of two or three dimensions. Only when there is relative motion among three objects does it become necessary to impose a two-dimensional space coordinate reference. The reference is only a mathematical device and not physically real. Only when there are four or more objects does it become necessary to impose a three-dimensional coordinate reference. It also is not physically real.

According to the laws of geometry, there cannot be more than three orthonormal dimensions in physical reality. In mathematics, it is possible to manipulate objects in as many degrees of freedom as desired, but they are not geometrically orthonormal dimensions, and such manipulations are only an algebraic device analogous to the invention of the square root of negative one (i) to solve polynomial equations. It is real magic.

The given and received fundamental relation of motion is v=Δs/Δt, the ratio of a change in distance per change of time. However, v stands for velocity, which is a vector that presupposes an arbitrary coordinate ‘container space’ (s). Removing the concept of vector leaves speed, S, and to avoid confusion, ‘space’ must be replaced by distance, d. Thus the relation of scalar speed is:

S = Δd/Δt

According to the law of conservation of unit and dimension, distance and time must have the same dimension. Where S represents a scalar motion (contraction or expansion) of a volume, d is a spherical volume and is three-dimensional. The radius of that volume, r, is only a one-dimensional measure of the sphere. A negative displacement is contraction; a positive displacement is expansion.

Since t is the reciprocal of d, it is also three dimensional. Space and time are congruent. In physical reality, there is no option to have a scalar motion in two or fewer dimensions.

Velocity is a change along a vector or path, one-dimensional. Contraction and expansion is a change in volume, three-dimensional. They are not the same.

Is it possible for matter to contract into a singularity? What happens to a volume that contracts to zero, but continues to contract? Where does it go?

In mathematics, the imaginary number i, when introduced to a 1 complex number, creates an analog of orthogonality, called the complex plane. In other words, the imaginary plane is said to be orthogonal to the real number line. It is ‘algebraically’ orthogonal, but not geometrically orthogonal in physical reality. In this sense, it is an analogue for an orthogonal dimension.

Naively, we would say that a volume that contracts below zero would be a ‘negative space.’ However, this is not quite correct, as a negative volume can be subtracted from a positive volume. The answer is that we are talking about an imaginary space, analogous to the complex plane, but in three dimensions. These three-dimensional imaginary spaces are called quaternions. Some have termed this concept as inverse space, anti-space, or counter-space, to distinguish it from scalar time. Quaternions are 4-dimensional. If you look at its multiplication table, only one permutation is a real number. I’m going to call that ‘anti-time’ or clock-space until I come up with a better name. Clock space is a scalar. The other three components define a 3D coordinate anti-space.

When a ‘dual’ function is performed on a 3D object, it turns inside out into the counter-space I described. The center point of inversion causes 3D coordinates to be unrepresentable as a vector after inversion from the point of view of the origin reference space, and becomes a scalar from that perspective. This is why we treat time as a one-dimensional scalar, even though it violates the law of conservation of dimension in reciprocal measures like velocity. To avoid confusion, we will call this clock-time, to distinguish it from coordinate time (an inverse space that is equivalent to time in the formula of motion).

But wait! I said that space and time have no real independent existence because they are reciprocal aspects of motion. So far, I have introduced 3D space, 3D time, 1D scalar clock time, and 1D scalar clock space. That’s 8 distinctly “algebraically” orthogonal dimensions.

So to represent motion in three dimensions, with 3D space, and 3D time, we need to go beyond the quaternion: the octonion. Octonions can be defined as pairs of quaternions. It can represent a motion with components in 3D space, scalar clock time, inverse 3D time, and scalar clock space.

The ‘split’ octonion is necessary because we as physical beings in our cosmos have a perspective that does not permit perception of time in 3 dimensions. There is probably an anti-universe sector with the same, but inverse problem: they can’t perceive our 3D space -- to them, it’s ‘clock-space.’ They just know that stuff pops out of some other (our) reality into theirs and out of their reality to somewhere else (our sector). It gets weirder. In in this geometric projection, translation in one sector becomes rotation in the inverse sector, and vice-versa for rotation — it transforms into translation. That leaves our concept of distance and location undefined under certain circumstances.

So there. A singularity is a placeholder for ‘inflection point.’ It’s an analogy, like the complex plane is an analogy for ‘orthonormal.’ I’ll bet that one day we’ll discover that wormholes are not the result of “collapsing and bending distance” but just an analogy for a state or geometric boundary where distance is not defined (as in the inversion mentioned above), and quantum entanglement and non-locality are really that nexus point between outer space and inner space where location does not have meaning, and all centers are the same center.

There is a big language and concept barrier involved in all this. We really, really, really WANT to talk about time and space as a coordinate spacetime arena in which things happen; we really don’t have a coordinate system that unambiguously refers to ONLY motion with 3 degrees of spatial freedom and 3 degrees of temporal freedom. We shouldn’t even try to use those words at all. It’s very heavy baggage holding back progress.

Until we solve the definition problem, we’re going to keep getting confused about what all types of physical phenomena really are. Much of what we are trying to explain at the subatomic scale and cosmological scale are probably perfectly definable as inverse motions, or “motions in time” — ugh, there I go again!

I’m a linguist and software engineer, not a physicist. As a linguist, I can tell you that the problem is in the definitions. As a software engineer, I can tell you that the solution to the problem, is the definition of the problem.

We can’t solve this problem until all of the definitions are precisely right.