Posted: Feb 21, 2012 12:11 pm
by DavidMcC
Thanks for the response, twistor59.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "hyperspace continuum" it sounds a bit like the kinetic Hilbert space I was talking about here.

Yes, it would be the space-like dimensions in which the connections connect! (In my philosophy, it has to be real if the connections are real.)

I'm not familiar with gravastars so unfortunately that's over my head.

From: Science Daily
Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory (

Date: Posted 4/23/2002

Los Alamos Researcher Says "Black Holes" Aren't Holes At All
Mottola and Pawel suggest that while some degree of collapsing does take place in a dying star, the collapse proceeds only to a certain point. At that point, the intense gravity of the dying star transforms the star's matter into an entirely new phase. Mottolla describes this phase as similar to a Bose-Einstein condensate, a phase of matter recently observed in a laboratory setting and the subject of scientific excitement in the past few years.

twistor59 wrote:The only "no god required" argument I've heard from him is related to his idea that the universe has no past boundary and hence no need for a moment of creation.

In the program I saw, he was interviewed about the subject. It may be that it was the narrator who said that "time stops" at the event horizon, and he was therefore possibly misrepresented.

Why should our big bang cosmos need anywhere to expand into ?

I know that the usual notion of "expanding into" conjures up the idea of some "outside" real space, as if space and hyperspace were of the same kind. However, in LQG, this hyperspace is quite different from the lines/nodes or loops of "real space", so our universe only has an edge or centre in hyperspace, not in its own dimensions, because the loops form great circles, so that, if we hypothetically went in a straight line far and fast enough, we would only get back where we started. Ie, from our point of view, within a "real space", there is no outside - no matter how far you travel, you cannot reach an edge, and not just because the universe is expanding too fast, but also because it is "finite but unbounded" - embedded in an actual infinite continuum as lines & nodes or linked loops. Another way of looking at it is that we only exist as particles - excitations of space, which are, by their very nature, confined to that space.

Ashtekar certainly seems to reject the hyperspace continuum as mathematically inconvenient and unnecessary, just as you are implying. However, his version of quantum gravity famously predicted the "big bounce", because, without this continuum, there can only be one "real space", ie there is no BH-based mutiverse (all generated from the same hyperspace continuum by the law of quantum gravity), ie, no concept of the "fecund universe". For this, and other reasons, I think the continuum (which can be likened to the paper on which the lines and nodes of his spin foam are drawn) should be kept, as it allows for gravity to act across it, which seems like a reasonable interpretation of the gravitational anomalies called "dark matter" (or, rather, that part of observed dark matter that cannot be accounted for as "ordinary" particles). Even more fundamentally in my version of quantum gravity, it forms the basis for the "law of quantum gravity" to produce actual spaces, like the one exist in.