[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Sun Jan 7 23:06:08 UTC 2018

Will Steinberg wrote:

> Wondering what you think about what it means between if your black hole and
> another if they have both been swallowed by a third?

Like everything else in GR, except the speed of light, what it means
depends on where the observer is located when he observes the
"swallowing". From the outside, you would see the same thing that LIGO
sees: A larger black hole swallowing a smaller one to form a single black
hole whose Schwarzschild radius is the sum of the Schwarzschild radii of
the two that collided minus some "cosmic change" which radiates away as
gravitational waves.

What observers inside our causal cell would see however is an entirely a
different story. Because of the iterated reversals of the arrow of time
for successive swallowings, allow me to formulate the temporal polarity
rule: Only black holes holes will ever be observed inside of white holes
and only white holes will be observed inside of black holes.

A black hole that swallows a smaller black hole reverses the smaller black
hole's temporal polarity and coverts it into a white hole inside the
larger black hole. Therefore the white hole is hidden from external
observers because of the event horizon of the black hole that contains it.

This satisfies the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis prohibiting naked
singularities which actually only applies to observers within white holes.
Within black holes *only* white holes with naked singularities should be
seen and the cosmic horizon should be blue-shifted instead of red-shifted.

This is why we don't see any white holes in our causal cell, because we
are already in a white hole. Observers within white holes only see one
singularity, their "big bang", the other singularities are hidden from
view inside black holes.

Observers within black holes see white holes with naked singularities
every time their casual cell swallows a smaller black hole. But as far as
their own singularity goes, it lies in their future and no light can
escape from it so they *cant* see it.

So with that background, I can finally get to answering your question. If
the black hole that contains our white hole were to be swallowed by a
still larger black hole, then we should see the arrow of time reverse
itself again.

Our causal cell should change from a white hole to a black hole. All the
black holes at the center of galaxies and roaming interstellar space
should all become white holes. Furthermore since our parent black hole had
become a white hole, our causal cell's cosmic horizon should become white
instead of black, hot instead of cold. Our CMB would become x-rays.

>  What if they are the
> only pair of black holes in a long string of monotonic swallowings?  All
> these permutations of cell linking would exist too.  So there are infinite
> structures of casual cells as well.

Yes, a long string of monotonic swallowings is the easiest to visualize,
but  the actual picture is more complicated. Causal cells can share 3
types of relationships with one another parent, child, and peer. It's like
a crazy 4-dimensional space-time fractal.

> This would lead me to believe that what you call causal cells are MUCH more
> [dense] and foamy than you're letting on.

Dense and foamy? On a supercosmic scale of trillions of light years, I
suppose it would be. But from our scale, it's pretty slow and ponderous.

> Possible answer is that:
> 1) EVERYTHING is black holes, big and small.

Yes. There is 5 times more dark matter in our causal cell, than there is
visible matter and I warrant *all* of it is in black holes of assorted

> 2) If we are just patterns of causal cell linking, perhaps we cannot [yet?]
> see certain attributes of the units within this network, such as the speed
> of pattern accretion or separation, which we witness with universal
> expansion.

Not quite yet, but LIGO rings off the hook every time they power it up, so
we might have a btter idea of this in the future.

> 3) I have a feeling that the boundaries of these cells might fade when they
> are very densely accreted in the "black hole swallowing level of
> abstraction" unit.  I.e. When your string of black holes has more beads
> than neighboring strings.  This unit would look like a helix in time, I
> think, according to your stuff.

Umm. You kind of lost me here. The boundaries are just event horizons
which are in effect the speed of light limit in either inward or outward
directions. Event horizons are like universal diodes. Matter and energy
can only flow in one direction, inward or outward, across them depending
on the horizon's temporal polarity.

> So we are black hole time helices?  And fate is whatever actions of them
> give birth to probability distributions in reality.  Some kind of
> conservation of timespring tension and handedness.
> Two oppositely wound springs would dialectically materialize and unwind
> (relative to their spring neighborhood.)

I guess you could think of the universe as branching "time helices". In
fact , aside from trying to explain dark matter, dark energy, and so
forth, my theory was in part motivated to give a general relativistic
framework for Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics to
operate within.

So yes, your fate is determined when your wave-function decoheres and you
discover which causal cell you have been living in all this time. The
theory of causal cells allow quantum randomness and relativistic
superdeterminism to become the same thing at the limit of infinity.

As far as your "timespring" idea, it sounds a little bit like "torsion"
that Lee Smolin and the Loop Quantum Gravity guys say caused our causal
cell to bounce back from a big crunch before reaching infinite density and
cause the big bang. Torsion may or may not be real, but it is not integral
to my theory.

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list