Principles of Tachyonic Physics

by David du Bois October 21, 2012

Contents
1 Cosmogenesis 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Extra-Special 2.1 . . . . . . 2.2 . . . . . . 2.3 . . . . . . 2.4 . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . 2.6 . . . . . . 2.7 . . . . . . 2.8 . . . . . . 2.9 . . . . . . 2.10 . . . . . . 2.11 . . . . . . 2.12 . . . . . . 2.13 . . . . . . 2.14 . . . . . . 2.15 . . . . . . 2.16 . . . . . . 3 Black Holes 3.1 . . . . . 3.2 . . . . . 3.3 . . . . . 3.4 . . . . . 3.5 . . . . . 3.6 . . . . . 3.7 . . . . . 3.8 . . . . . 3.9 . . . . . 3.10 . . . . . Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Conclusions 2 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 1 5 About the Author

15 15 15 17 17 17

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abstract
The paper will proceeds in three sections. Section A will oer a view of the Big Bang as an event that produced both the standard observed universe as well as a corresponding anti-universe. It is argued that this interpretation will lead to a symmetry which eliminates the observed baryonic asymmetry and creates a model that can more fully describe the other symmetries that will be discussed. Section B will extend the theory of Special Relativity to include tachyonic particles and energies. This resulting increase in complexity is justied by oering an explanation of dark matter and dark energy, thereby simplifying the universal picture. Furthermore, it will be argued that the inclusion of tachyonic matter and energy is in agreement with modern quantum mechanical interpretations and can describe particle behavior at the Planck scale. Section C will relate these notions to black holes, describing how these particles and energies t with existing descriptions of black hole behavior. The conclusion contains a Cartesian Solid that summarizes the dimensionality of all of these arguments and demonstrates that the model requires no more than 4 dimensions and no hidden variables to describe the known universe.

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

1
1.1

Cosmogenesis

tributes and anti-attributes from its interacting predecessor particles after a collision event.

The Universe as we understand it began with an event known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang is dened as the beginning of time (time equal to zero) and the expansion of space from its smallest conceivable form (space equal to its lowest limits). This point in spacetime, before the Planck Epoch, can be described by as a Hartle-Hawking State[1], a true singularity in which the time and space are unbounded and due to a lack of any kind of reference frame, the very idea of time and space seems inappropriate to apply in a traditional sense. After the Planck Epoch, spacetime gains meaning as one state may be compared to another, forming a causal chain. Unfortunately, if spacetime expands as expected and the universal symmetries that have been measured hold true for all time, the problem of Baryon Asymmetry arises - why does our universe contain more matter than anti-matter when current models predict that matter formation should produce an equal number of particles and anti-particles? Currently there are no known violations of the symmetrical process of particle pair production, and the only reason that theories of Baryogenesis attempt to describe a symmetry breaking process would be to reconcile our observed universe with our current Big Bang model.

1.3

From this picture, it would be natural to describe each universe as having a unique and opposite Energy (+/- E), Size/Volume, Charge, Angular Momentum, and Spin/Chirality. Our universe could be described as having a nite energy, a nite volume, a charge (approximately electrically neutral- at statistical equilibrium), an angular momentum (resulting in a forward time direction), and a spin/chirality (resulting in, for example, a preference for left handed neutrinos). The antiverse could then be considered to have opposing energy, nite volume, neutral charge, reversed angular momentum resulting it a reversed time direction, a spin/chirality that would favor right-handed neutrinos. Figure A.B shows a diagram organizing the universe (quadrants I and II) and antiverse (quadrants III and IV). Quadrant I (++++) describes particles moving with space and against time (universal anti-particles). Quadrant II (-+++) describes particles moving with space and time (universal particles). Quadrants III (-) and IV (+) describe a mirrored symmetry for the antiverse - its antiparticle and particle equivalents respectively. This description exploits the existing arbitrary choice in how to describe our 3+1 universe, with -++++ and + both giving equivalent descriptions. Although the choice of which one to label as 1.2 our universe is still arbitrary, once chosen, the oppoThe problem can be completely sidestepped by as- site coordinates now have an immediate physical insuming that the Big Bang, already described as an terpretation describing a mirror universe that exists event (something having both a time and a place), behind the Big Bang and expands in the opposite is itself a part of a causal chain, exactly like any direction (i.e. recedes in time). observable event seen in everyday life. This could be modeled with a Feynman diagram [Figure A.A] describing two proto-universes interacting in a Big 2 Extra-Special Relativity Bang and producing as a result one universe and one anti-universe. Here, the two protoverses are drawn 2.1 as straight lines, to suggest a causal chain connection inherent in each one. The Big Bang is represented In 1908 Hermann Minkowski[2] published a paper in as the wiggly line, suggesting a much more chaotic which he depicted time dilation, length contraction, causal process, analogous the unpredictable mecha- and the invariance of the speed of light as seen by a nism that determines what particle receives which at- Lorentz transformation in a pictorial fashion. These 2

diagrams are now commonly referred to as Minkowski diagrams. They are traditionally used only to display subluminal worldlines (Bradyons) in relation to an ideal path of light. While special relativity allows for supraluminal particles (Tachyons), provided that they never deceed the speed of light, they are rarely depicted. When the diagrams originally became popular, this was understandable as the inclusion of tachyons would lead to an increase in complexity without providing any information relevant to real physical phenomenon. The section below will investigate what the introduction of these particles would entail and challenge the general notion that their existence and behavior are not amenable to current observations. [Figures B.A, B.B, and B.C - Minkowski Diagrams depicting time dilation, length contraction, and a Lorentz transformation showing the invariant speed of light.]

in this case luxonic, as it is moving at exactly the speed of light) observer would presumably be unable measure either one of these variables, the ability to note its frequency would be fairly useless. Furthermore, the photon would have to continue to move forward to maintain this picture and so would get further and further away from the original point at which it observed the divergence. This would result in an entropic reduction in the quality of information that could realistically be measured by the photonic observer.

2.3

The previous assessment is a description from the photons point of view. The same diagram can be constructed, this time from the tachyons point of view [gure B.E]. The tachyon will observe the photon growing closer in a linear fashion until it overtakes the other particle, at which point it will notice that the photon has split, and is now moving in two circles, 2.2 one rotating anticlockwise, the other clockwise, both The rst diagram that will be constructed involves rotating at c velocity and receding from the tachyons taking a tachyonic particle and a photon, placing view at a speed proportional to the dierence in inithe tachyon (assumed to be capable of moving only tial velocities. at a constant velocity above c) at a starting point with time and space set to zero, placing the photon 2.4 at a starting point with time set to one unit of c (the unit propagation speed) and space set to zero, There are now two seemingly contradictory viewand allowing them to evolve as they move straight points. One states that the photon is moving straight forward along the time line [gure B.D]. From the in time and unwaveringly in space while the tachyon photons perspective it will appear that the tachyon branches out in two directions and curves so violently will be moving straight while it catches up to the that it appears to go backwards in time, reappearphoton (which was given a head start of one unit c) ing in the past in a point-like manner. The other and then will split into an ultrahyperbolic shape af- view point states that the tachyon is moving straight ter it overtakes the photon and eventually disappears in time and unwaveringly in space while the photon from view. Before the tachyon disappears, it will look travels slowly forward in a superposition in which it as if it has become two dierent particles diverging spins left and right at the same time, a maneuver from one another. As the system is allowed to con- that requires it to periodically go against the initial tinue to evolve, the photon will periodically see the time direction. The principle of relativity states that tachyon ash into existence at some point in space- both points of view are entirely true. time in its relative past. By noting the frequency of the tachyons appearance, a photonic observer would 2.5 be able to deduce the tachyons wavelength if it knew what its constant velocity was, or deduce the veloc- As bizarre as the previous case of single photon comity if it knew the wavelength. As a bradyonic (or pared to single tachyon may be, another case can 3

be constructed that may be even more interesting. Figure B.F shows two photons, emanating from a starting point whose worldlines are conjugate. The photons are comoving in time and opposed in space. No tachyons are depicted. Figure B.G adds a single tachyon moving straight forward in time and unwaveringly forward in space. This diagram is drawn from the tachyons perspective. It observes the two photons splitting into two circles, each rotating in the opposite direction. One circle spins anticlockwise in the left half of the diagram, the other spins clockwise in the right half of the diagram. A third circle is created that represents the overlap of the two remaining circles that the photons would produce. This circle appears to be a superposition of both photons, spinning both directions at the same time. If this were an observation made by a bradyonic observer, one would expect an annihilation event to occur. As this observation is made from the tachyonic perspective, this is not the case. The two photons would see nothing unusual from their perspective, observing their partner receding from them in a space-like manner as they both propagate forward in time. What the tachyonic perspective provides is an illustration of entanglement and a pictorial demonstration of the Relational Interpretation of quantum phenomenon as originally espoused by Carlo Rovelli[3]. Both photons emanated from a single point of origin in spacetime and are moving in comparable directions in time and contrasting directions in space. When this situation occurs in reality, it results in an entangled pair. Although it is not depicted, both photons would observe the single forward moving tachyon spraying its worldline out primarily in the opposite quadrant of space relative to the observer as it moves forward in time. If they collaborated and superimposed their viewpoints, it would appear that the tachyon spreads out in a manner in which it is moving forward, left, and right through spacetime simultaneously. Presumably, it would still be possible to see it ash into existence at a point in the past relative to the initial photons position if the system were allowed to evolve for a long enough time.

2.6
So far, all diagrams have displayed tachyons from a point of view in which they are covering large distances compared to the photons on a very large scale. When describing a particle that is required to travel at multiples of the distance of light as time evolves, it would be a serious oversight not to consider the same phenomenon on the smallest scale as well. Figures B.H and B.I display a complementary interpretation in which the tachyons curl locally instead of curving globally, fullling their distance requirements without having to leave the observers frame of reference. In these planar diagrams, the phenomenon is represented as a spiral shape. These diagrams are constructed using the invariant speed of light in a vacuum to create an interaction space covering the quantum of action; light travels one unit c over one Planck length during one Planck time. If a single simple spiral is used, it would depict a tachyon curling into this Planck space and burrowing in innitely deep at a point in-between the initial and nal points of the photonic light segment. As this occurs, the energy of the particle would concentrate in a smaller area of space. Assuming that there is any kind of limit on how much energy can be in a given amount of space, the particle would eventually have to complete a full circular rotation and uncurl in the opposite direction, or would have to spontaneously create a virtual particle pair (virtual vacuum pair production). The virtual particle pair production seems the more physical of two cases and could result in not only virtual photons but even higher energy particles if the tachyons were energetic enough. The more energetic the tachyon, the less likely it would be to occupy a space, meaning that a photon would be the most commonly detectable particle produced. The space being examined, however, is too small to accommodate a photon, so particle pair production at the the Planck scale would leave only the graviton as the most likely particle candidate. The tachyon would curl so violently that it would begin to occupy the space, shape, and energy of a graviton; as this occurs, graviton/antigraviton pair production would occur, the particles would annihilate, and a tachyon would uncurl with reverse orientation. Taking the 4

graviton as the limiting spacial constraint, the vanishing point of the tachyon would be represented as a circle and the tachyons as evoluting and involuting lines. Taking some arbitrary minimum distance as the absolute spacial limit, this limit would represent the diameter of the circle. In either case (graviton pair production or a limiting circular orbit due to an absolute nite spatial length), both descriptions refer to the same basic phenomenon- it is simply a matter of physical interpretation as to which one is correct. Visually, the process of annihilation/orbital redirection will be represented with an anti-spiral, beginning at the central innitesimal point and curling out towards the end point in the corner of the diagram. Figures B.J, B.K, and B.L show spirals that begin in a time-like manner, a space-like manner, and two opposing spirals that being in a light like manner. Interestingly, this picture is able to reproduce the same basic patterns described in a particle-like manner by chronons, elucidated by Piero Caldirola[4], and in a wave-like manner by transactional standing waves as described by John Cramer[5]. Tachyonic interactions within the Planck length appear to naturally form themselves into advanced, symmetric, and retarded components as viewed by a light-like observer. [Figure B.M delineates the tachyonic pattern into two triangles, representing the advanced and retarded components, and shows their dividing line, the diameter of the interaction, as being the symmetric component.]

with points between the Planck length that would have convening involute and evolute curves linking them.

2.8
The phenomenon of quantum tunneling could also be viewed as the tachyonic attraction between two points of spacetime that would exceed the the barrier energy traditionally preventing a particle from passing. As the tachyons move through the surrounding space, interacting with the classical particles, the ability of these faster-than-light particles feel out more than one possible position in space for the classical particle to occupy by interacting with more than one possible positions in time, allowing for a particle to begin to occupy a space it could not reach with only classical motion and energy.

2.9

The Quantum Zeno Eect is another quantum phenomenon in which the tachyonic particle would appear to be in good agreement with. As an unstable particle is being repeatedly measured, its measurement prevents it from decohering. This would be completely in line with a view in which tachyonic particles would require a certain amount of space and time to move within before allowing a particle to transition states. If a measurement occurs in a frame closer to the original state than its natural predecessor state, the tachyons would instead ow towards 2.7 the new disturbance and abandon whatever point in Curling tachyonic particles t not only these two spacetime they were initially attracted to. less accepted formulations of quantum mechanics described above but also the well accepted Path Inte2.10 gral/ Sum over Histories model developed by Richard Feynman[6]. The tachyonic description would inter- A comment on the de Broglie relation describing matpret the possible particle paths as tachyonic particles ter waves is in order as well. In its traditional use owing though a system where classical particles fol- it describes only particles of matter propagating in low the path with the strongest tachyonic ow, the a wave-like manner through spacetime in a timeother paths requiring more energy to create. This like manner. If one simply replace the traditional would explain how classic particles are able to cal- 3-spatial 1-temporal coordinates of classical particles culate the shortest path to follow before arriving at with the 3-temporal 1-spatial coordinates of a pure their destination. The tachyonic diagram would re- tachyon, one would instead be describing a timeplace the river of arrows seen in the path integral wave propagating through spacetime in a matter5

like manner. This is completely in line with previous descriptions of tachyons acting like chronons and spacio-temporal messenger particles that, although incapable of transmitting a classical bit of information (a fact that can and has been demonstrated in countless ways), would still be capable of informing relations between matter and spacetime.

2.11
Two of the most commonly cited grievances against tachyonic particles are their imaginary mass and corresponding negative energy. The existence of an imaginary mass simply states that the mass eld is complex, capable of one more degree of freedom than traditionally granted. The use of imaginary numbers in physics is generally well accepted: the Schrdinger equation is not dismissed as unreal simply because it contains an imaginary gure. The use of this number allows the equation to describe complex phenomenon instead of limiting itself to simple, monochromatic wave phenomenon. While the mass eld should not be needlessly complicated, the current observations in astronomy demand an explanation for why classical mass seems inadequate at explaining the behavior of massive galaxies. In fact, the discrepancy between predicted behavior of galaxies containing only classical mass and observation is not a minute discrepancy - current calculations require that most mass in the observable universe be described by some alternative means.

scape is described as possessing dark energy which is responsible for expanding space at a rate faster than the propagation of light and baryonic matter. These two concepts- vacuum energy and dark energyare conveniently linked in the standard models of cosmology (the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model). If tachyons require negative energy, and the vacuum energy and dark energy are considered to be distinct from the energy of classical positive energy particles, all that is being stated when one speaks about negative energy is that it is distinct from the energy of classical particles. It is no less real, and seeing as dark energy, like dark matter, is not some tiny deviation from the expected value but rather believed to constitute the majority of energy in the universe, it seems ridiculous to brush away the possibility of tachyonic particles merely because their formulation conforms to the peculiarities of the dominant model of massenergy given in modern cosmology (which may be better described by a Lambda Dark Tachyonic Matter model).

2.13
To make the correspondence between dark energy and tachyonic energy as clear as possible, imagine a particle of pure classical energy moving unhampered in free space. As far as it will travel, only one constant metric will be necessary to describe its path. Likewise, a particle of pure tachyonic energy moving unhampered through free space will require a single constant metric. When comparing the tachyonic particle to the classical particle, the the tachyonic metric will appear to be expanding relative to the classical metric as the tachyonic particle will appear to both branch out in space and outpace the classical particle, reproducing the phenomenon of metric spatial expansion associated with dark energy. To make the correspondence between dark mass and tachyonic mass clear, imagine a subatomic system similar to any subatomic system conventionally studied by particle physicists. These systems can, for the most part, be perfectly described without any gravitational factors. From this rst view, the eects of gravity are negligible. Massive tachyonic particles appear to interact almost exclusively with gravity and 6

2.12
Negative particle energy is also often viewed as some sort of unreal concept. There are only two places where negative energy could exist relative to positive energy: below the vacuum barrier or above the cosmic speed barrier of light. The tachyons described so far have been viewed in only two perspectives: non-localized, as diverging ultra-hyperbolic particles occupying truly cosmic expanses of spacetime, and localized, existing as involuting and evoluting curves occupying a conned space dened by Plancks relation. The vacuum is described as having an energy in modern formulations of physics, and the cosmic land-

would interact with the other forces in a negligible manner. Therefore, until a particle system reaches a level of complexity which requires all four fundamental forces to describe its behavior, only a simple classical mass term would be necessary. Once an appreciable amount of gravity is clearly interacting with the system, requiring the use of Einsteins eld equations, one would expect to see tachyonic inuences more clearly. As the systems grow in scope, the eld equations begin to require more mass to correctly match observation. This new mass is unlike the mass seen in subatomic systems, and would naturally require some kind of dierentiating term to maintain consistency. It appears that an imaginary number is all that is required to make this distinction. The imaginary mass would lead to a negative energy when squared, and match well with the description of an expanding vacuum, the vacuum energy already being negative to dierentiate it from the positive energy occupying the space above it.

and particle number conservation. In his formulation, the tachyonic particle number is kept constant while the total tachyonic energy varies. This would lead to a beautiful description of nature where our present observed universe is considered to be composed of a set number of tachonic particles interacting with a set amount of positive energy; a world where classical particles and tachyonic energy come and go as observers move through spacetime.

2.15
If the world is taken to be at a universal equilibrium between negative and positive energy, entropy would be the only force that would aect lasting change in a system. As measurements are being made and the future is being calculated into the present, the associated entropy would increase with every nonadiabadic process. Although local transformations would in a certain sense be exempt, every process would be expected to increase entropy, at least globally, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. A very interesting idea was put forth by Erik Verlinde[8] in which he suggested that gravity could be modeled as an entropic force resulting from the transformation of information. Although generally taken as an alternative to the notion of gravity as a fundamental force mediated by a gauge particle, it is more likely a correct interpretation of gravity as viewed from a dierent perspective: that of the universe as a globally non-adiabadic process involving the the transformation of particles and energies that maintain a global equilibrium while maintaining local areas that are not at equilibrium.

2.14
The presence of negative energy particles would demand that whatever absorbs them would loose positive energy and whatever would emit them would gain positive energy. This would lead to a reversal of the usual way of thinking about absorption and emission. This transmission process should be viewed from a perspective that takes into account the past, present, and future. As a classical particle absorbs tachyons, it looses energy until it fades out of existence. As a classical particle emits tachyons, it gains energy until it reaches some kind of limit. The view of the past would be that tachyons are absorbed until the particles loose all energy and have no ongoing causal connection with the present universe. The view of the present is that tachyons are emitted and absorbed in a symmetric fashion and positive energy is conserved and at equilibrium. The view of the future is that particles are emitting tachyons from whatever limit is chosen until they are able to descend into the present. Gerald Feinberg[7] formulated a theory of tachyons in which they are described as spin-0 fermions and behave in a manner exactly reversed from that of classical particles in regard to energy 7

2.16
The direct observation of local tachyonic particles would appear to be impossible as all traditional measuring methods of particles are fundamentally limited in accuracy by the uncertainty principle and a bradyonic observers inability to directly manipulate anything faster or lighter than a photon. Tachyonic eects would be observed on a large scale, but only when viewing objects that are receding from an observers light cone, meaning that they are, relative to

the observer, traveling faster than the speed of light. One would not expect to see tachyonic eects until measurements of very distant (in both space and time) phenomenon could be made. Coincidentally, dark matter and dark energy were rst discovered in relativistic rotating galactic phenomenon. This would explain the negative results of dark matter observation being made too close to the local solar system. The solar system does not exhibit the necessary conditions for dark phenomenon to become apparent. As measurements are made further away in spacetime, the eects would become noticeable.

limit of classical physical processes, and the polar jets which eject matter with incredible velocity away from the black hole.

3.4

The shape of the accretion disk can be understood as follows: as massive bradyonic matter is pulled towards an innite singularity, the energy of the system will tend towards innity as well because the velocity of the system will attempt to reach innity. This will lead to length contraction and time dilation. The length contraction will take bradyonic matter of any shape or size and squish it into a pancake. The time 3 Black Holes dilation will ensure that the particles closer to the singularity will experience time more slowly. In the 3.1 center of this object, the eects of time would apThe following section will assume that the universe proach zero. Real black holes do not persist for an may be modeled as a 4 dimensional manifold. A quick innite amount of time, so one would expect a hole review of the previous sections is in order to under- in the center where the particles closest to the sinstand which elements of this manifold have already gularity would be moving so slow that they would been discussed and which elements must still be ex- never reach the center before the black hole exhausts its energy supply. plored.

3.2
Section B discussed bradyonic particles, described by 3 spatial and 1 temporal coordinates. Tachyionic particles were described as 3 temporal and 1 spatial coordinates. When mapped onto Cartesian quadrants [gure C.A], this would leave two missing sections, both representing 2 spatial and 2 temporal coordinates. The only realistic place in the universe where such coordinate systems would appear to be relevant would be inside of a black hole.

3.5

Whereas bradyonic matter would be forced into a disk shape, tachyonic matter would form into a ball shape. As its mass-energy gets pulled towards the singularity and steadily builds, the mass of the tachyonic matter would slow their progress down. Instead of being able to curve out into vast regions of space, it would be forced to curl into the inner horizon of the black hole where the gravitational attraction would be so strong that it could not escape. The inner horizon would therefore be able to trap dark matter and energy inside of its volume until the black hole 3.3 collapsed. The volume of the inner horizon would The center of a black hole has classically been viewed then contain an ultra-hyperbolic tangle of dark massas a singularity containing an innite massive den- energy. sity that attracts all the particles in its vicinity. The black hole will be studied as ve distinct components: 3.6 the accretion disk of bradyonic matter, the photon sphere consisting of photons in orbit around the black Photons would neither form a disk nor would they be hole, the event horizon which signals the limit of out- able to pass into the center of the black hole as, at side observation, the inner horizon which signals the a certain point (calculated to be one and a half time 8

the Schwarzchild radius), the photons would simply orbit the black hole. They would be unable to approach any closer as they would need to travel faster than c make any further progress. As realistic black holes always rotate, their shape would never be perfectly spherical and the corresponding photon orbit would be neither perfectly spherical nor exactly stable. Somewhere in between the photon sphere and the event horizon, it has been conjectured by Stephen Hawking[9] that the production of virtual particles (which this paper has suggested are themselves a byproduct of tachyonic interactions) in this particular environment would lead to some of these particles separating, with one virtual photon being ejected outward and the other particle falling past the event horizon [gure C.B]. This has historically led to a so called black hole information paradox, a situation where energy is radiated away from the black hole that contains no information on the original contents of the ingoing material.

3.7
This paradox requires two important points to lead to its resolution. The rst point concerns the dierence between the two particles that are separated. If the rst particle is created in a rotating environment and happens to gain enough momentum to escape annihilation with its partner to re-enter the outside world, it would have to be described as a time-like photon. Its energy would be so incredibly small, lower than that of the cosmic background radiation, that it would be completely undetectable and, in a certain sense, contain no information. Nevertheless, it would occupy a 3+1 spatiotemporal pattern. Its partner, in contrast, would be shot in a perpendicular direction closer to the singularity and so would not t the same metric. The photon would instead have to be described as o shell, containing both a mass term and the possibility of moving faster than the speed of light (which would help ensure that it heads toward the singularity without veering o course and getting stuck in an orbital pattern). This is perfectly in line with what is being described in a Feynman diagram and allowed to occur within the connes of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. As these particles would never 9

actually exist for any signicant time under normal circumstances, they have often been disregarded as a mere mathematical convenience. For the case of a black hole, it would be impossible for Hawking radiation to actually occur without massive photons also forming and falling towards the singularity. The second point that must be made regarding the creation of these particles is that they are not formed by classical particles and classical energy. Virtual particles are formed out of the vacuum when certain energetic conditions are met wherein the excess energy of a system interacts with vacuum quanta and spontaneously forms (generally) short lived particles that usually annihilate one another and simplify the system in question into more well conventional forms of particles and energy. Hawkings radiation is either less a removal of information carrying energy from a black hole system and more of a re-organization of vacuum energy, or the particle information is contained in a massive photon which will be processed in the inner horizon and its information will be ejected intact at a later point in spacetime and in a more conventional form from the polar jets.

3.8
Based on calculations of information and entropy content of black holes by Jacob Bekenstein[10], Gerald tHooft [11]and Leonard Susskind[12] proposed the Holographic Principle - the notion that all information associated with a black hole is contained on its 2 dimensional surface area. The inner volume of the black hole, so far described as containing only tachyonic dark energy, dark matter, and massive virtually produced photons contains no information in the classical sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, the exotic interior of the black hole would still contain some kind of physical process. While the interior of a black hole may be dicult if not impossible to perfectly track every element of its processes, a general description ought to be deducible.

3.9
As an object crosses the event horizon of a stellar black hole, it will experience a process described as

Spaghettication where the part of the object closest to the inner horizon will be pulled with more force than the part further away. These objects would eventually get stretched into thin noodle-like shapes that approximate one dimension of space by one dimension of time as they approach the inner horizon. Once these objects have crossed the inner horizon, they could truly be described as 1 dimensional complex spacetime structures (1 dimension of space, 1 dimension of time). These structures will be referred to as spacetime spaghetti noodles. As mentioned earlier, black holes rotate, which would mean that if, for example, the photon sphere were to be analyzed, the photons at one side of the sphere would be traveling in a path that would be the exact opposite direction as the photons on the other side of the sphere. This would mean that if a photon were plucked from the left side and superimposed on a photon plucked from the other side, they would annihilate as they would be traveling in opposing directions. Whatever direction is arbitrarily chosen as the forward time or space direction, the photon on the other side would have to be considered as moving in the backwards time or space direction. Likewise, with the noodles, it would be understood that the noodles entering from one part of the inner horizon would be in metric opposition to those entering from another side. To describe the entire process would then require a 2+2 dimensional outlook. This outlook would ll the missing two sections of gure C.A. A solution for black hole evaporation in two dimensions has been worked out by Abhay Ashtekar, Frans Pretorius, and Fethi Ramazanoglu[13] in which information loss is prevented. This could be considered a solution for a single set of noodles; its inverse the solution to the complementary set of noodles.

matter-energy worthy of approaching it as it satiates its horrifying appetite. The eyeballs represent its two opposing temporal dimensions, its meat-balls the two corresponding dimensions of space]. Just as all classical information can be represented in a holographic boundary on the outer edges of the black hole, all dark information can be represented in a holographic boundary behind the classical holographic surface. The description would require two coordinates, one for each 2 dimensional spacetime. This trick would require stereographic projection, a mathematical function that would give an exact denition for every point of the sphere except for its projection point. Just as the earth can be stereographically projected onto a planar surface, yielding longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates that can fully describe any point on its surface except for the poles (which are dened as innity instead of a number), so the interior of black would appear completely dened except for the poles, where presumably any noodle that reached theses points would be pulled out to a polar innity, resulting an a suggestive mathematical notion that could help explain how the polar jets form and why they erupt with such incredible force.

3.11

It is worth noting that the interior volume of the inner horizon would be by far the most bizarre place in the universe as far as spacetime would be concerned as it would appear to posses all the ingredients necessary for wormholes to form. John Wheeler and Robert Fuller[14] rst placed limits on the classic Einstein-Rosen wormhole by stating that it would be unstable and collapse too fast to allow even light to pass through it, although tachyonic particles would presumably be excempt. Kip Thorne and Mike Morris[15] have made a nearly equivalent discovery 3.10 that wormholes could be stable if supplied with negThe volume of the inner horizon could then be de- ative energy. Tachyonic matter and their correspondscribed not as a naked singularity which is being cos- ing negative energy as condensed in the inner region mically censored, but as a sort of Spaghetti Mon- of a black hole would satisfy these conditions. This ster that devours all manner of exotic matter and re- would prevent a true singularity from ever interactarranges its constituent properties in a fully causal ing with any kind of matter as wormhole formation manner [gure C.C depicts the Spaghetti Monster would increase in probability and stability as the nooin its full majesty, ravenously feasting on the only dles approach the singular point, warping them into 10

a position of spacetime safely away from the singularity. Although causality would be preserved, the interior region would no longer be considered simply connected, making the calculation of exact numerical solutions for this region an absolutely Herculean task.

4
4.1

Conclusions

To help visualize the dimensionality discussed in the above sections, the concepts can be mapped onto cartesian octants. For illustrative clarity, two cartesian planes will be displayed which will be joined together to form the octants. The quadrants are able to hold two values (+-) which can describe the standard X+Y dimensional description of a universes space time (traditionally given as 3+1). The octant will add one more value to represent the distinction between the two universes hypothesized to have been created from the big bang event, and to allow for a natural classication of anti-tachyons. [Universal Plane] Quadrant I (++++) describes antiparticles moving against time and with space. Quadrant II (-+++) describes classic particles moving with time and space as conventionally noted. Quadrant III (++) describes possible coordinate choices for representing black hole inner horizons. It should be noted that this quadrant can be represent with any combination of + and -. Quadrant IV (+) represents tachyons, occupying more position in time than in space. [Anti-versal Plane] Quadrant I (-) describes antiparticles in the mirror reection of the traditional universe. Section A argued for the existence of such a universe. These particles move against their universes time and with their universes space. Quadrant II (+) describes the mirror equivalent of classical particles, moving with time and space. Quadrant III (++) again describes any arbitrary choice of 2+2 dimensional coordinates used in black hole description. Quadrant IV (+++-) represents anti-tachyons. [Uberversal Solid]

The above diagram is capable of representing all of the dimensional concepts discussed in this paper. While the diagrams with quadrants represent a given universe, the octants represents a multiversal view. Although the concept of a multiverse is very useful, it is also an unfortunate abuse of language as there no longer exists a clear distinction between the universe as a concept representing one part of a greater series of multiverses and the Universe as representing the one single concept in which physical reality, regardless of its sub-relations, can be described in its entirety. To help clarify this distinction, the above octant describes a multiverse and within a greater, indivisible Uberverse. The solid divides the universe and antiverse along a mirrored reection on the xy plane. What the diagram would suggest is that, as the universes expand toward their heat death, that the bradyons will interact until spacetime has stretched itself so far that the relations described in the standard model no longer occur. When the relative strength of forces are measured, it is usually with the Strong force set to 1 and all other forces set many orders of magnitude below it, with gravity being essentially negligible. For tachyonic particles, this would be inverted, as gravity is the most important force for them, set to 1 and all the forces of the standard model would be, for most intents and purposes, negligible. As these two universes exhaust themselves, their center of mass will be at their exact physical centers. In a dead universe, the only force that could possibly still be at play would be gravity. Therefore, the only thing that tachyonic particles and energy could be attracted to would be the center of the opposing universe. This would lead a tachyonic drift that would eventually bring the two realms together in a universal a gravitational collapse, causing a cosmic recycling process to form wherein all energy would cancel out and form a singular point of collapsed attraction where total universal energy would be at its most concentrated state. This state could be described as a HartleHawking state, and would lead to another Big Bang event where the initial repulsion of energy would propel the rst particle pairs to escape each other instead of allowing their inherent attractive forces to lead to mutual annihilation. Bias and distinct uni-

11

verses would again form. Obviously, there are four dierent spacetime coordinates that can be rearranged in more ways than ares useful, requiring a hyperoctant for perfect representation. This hyperoctant would provide no more conceptual clarity and would simply describe the boundaries of the 4-dimensional manifold assumed to describe the universe. The concepts displayed in the Uberversal solid offers a succinct summation of the arguments in this paper. Section A argued for the creation of complementary antiverse at the Big Bang event to eliminate the baryonic asymmetry problem. Section B argued for the extension of special relativity into what was referred to as Extra-special relativity, incorporating tachyonic matter and energy to explain the existence of dark matter and dark energy on the cosmic scale, and to describe the behavior of particles at the Planck scale. Section C oered an interpretation of how this view would t into the description of a black hole, oering a view-point that, when black holes are considered to be analogous to the creation, destruction, emission, and absorption of universe, would be in line with the Pastafarian belief that an unseen Spaghetti Monster created the universe and refuses direct observation by its human by-products. The entire argument is able to proceed without using more than 4 dimensions or any hidden variables.

may thereby be simplied.

4.3
Standard Model Extension: X-Tachyon [space-like], Y-Tachyon [time-like], W/Z Tachyons [light-like] anti-X, anti-Y, anti-W/Z Tachyons

About the Author

David du Bois is 23 year old natural philosopher. Communication can be attempted at djdoobwah@gmail.com

References
[1] Hartle, J.; Hawking, S. (1983). Wave function of the Universe. Physical Review D 28 (12): 2960. [2] Minkowski, H. (1909). Raum und Zeit. Jahresberichte der Deutschen MathematikerVereinigung. [3] Rovelli, C. (1994). On Quantum Mechanics. arXic:hep-th/9403015 [4] Caldirola, P. (1980). The introduction of the chronon in the electron theory and a charged lepton mass formula. Lett. Nuovo Cim. 27 (8): 225-228. [5] Cramer, J. (1986). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 58: 647-688. [6] Feynman, R. (1948). The Space-Time Formulation of Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 20 (2): 367-387. [7] Feinberg, G. (1967). Possibility of Faster-ThanLight Particles. Physical Review 159: 10891105. [8] Verlinde, E. (2011). On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton. JHEP 04, 29.

4.2
As this paper was being written, an article was published by James Hill and Barry Cox[16] which described Lorentz-like transformations for faster-thanlight velocities. While the ideas of this paper were developed entirely from the rst two Minkowski diagrams shown in section 2.1, the ideas of time-dilation [B.A] and length contraction [B.B], the two authors appear to have worked out the mathematical framework that would be necessary to relate the third diagram, the Lorentz transformation [B.C], to the theory of Extra-special relativity. It is the hope of the author that, a century after Hermann Minkowski published his original diagrams, the full implications of these gures be taken to their logical conclusions and that the mathematical description of the universe 12

[9] Hawking, S. (1974). Black hole explosions?. Nature 248 (5443): 30. [10] Bekenstein, J. (1973). Black Holes and Entropy. Physical Review D 7 (8): 2333-2346. [11] Stephens, C.R.; t Hooft, G.; Whiting, B. (1994). Black hole evaporation without information loss. Classical and Quantum Gravity 11 (3): 621. [12] Susskind, L. (1995). The World as a Hologram. Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (11): 6377-6396. [13] Ashtekar, A.; Pretorius, F.; Ramazanoglu, F. (2011). Evaporation of 2-Dimensional Black Holes. Physical Review D 83: 044040. [14] Fuller, R.; Wheeler, J. (1962). Causality and Multiply Connected Space-Time. Physical Review 128: 919. [15] Morris, M.; Thorne, K. (1988). Wormholes in Spacetime and Their Use for Interstellar Travel: A Tool for Teaching General Relativity. American Journal of Physics 56: 395-416. [16] Hill, J.; Cox, B. (2012) Einsteins Special Relativity Beyond the Speed of Light. Proceedings of the Royal Society A

13