O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.

Lead me from the darkness to light.

Lead me from death to immortality.

May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace.

– Brihadaranyaka Upanishads (1.3.28)

Fair Notice: The following article is an expression of opinion. I assert no “truths” other than those I believe are commonly accepted by the scientific or (responsible) religious communities. I make no claim of scientific expertise. I claim only to have an educated layman’s knowledge of the widely recognized theories cited below. In the event I have made any (or many) errors in technical expression, this author and publication will always be receptive to expert – if well intended – criticism and correction.

This article will review a set of well-known concepts in theoretical Cosmology. Its purpose is to offer a possible solution to the apparent discontinuity between Professor Frank Tipler’s Omega Point Theory asserting the existence of Almighty God – G-d, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, you-name-It – and the scientific evidence for cosmological inflation. I offer the Bicameral Universe Hypothesis to help explain this apparent contradiction.

In my Bicameral Universe model, the Big Bang is a single explosive event that propels massive ejecta in two equal but opposite directions in SpaceTime.

I propose that,

1. The Universe, taken as a whole and inclusive of all time and space, is subject to Quantum Analysis.

2. The Hubble Constant remains constant even for an area of space that is smaller than a Planck’s Length.

3. Hubble’s Constant is governed by the Anthropic Principle.

4. Observations that inflation accelerates over time and space is an outcome of the Anthropic Principle. (This is because analog observers can only function in a causal environment.)

5. The Heat Death is governed by the Uncertainty Principle. This is because, when indivisible particles become “infinitely” separated from each other (as they would in any imagined “Heat Death” scenario), they can be conceptualized as exising alone inside their own respective event horizons, “unobserved” by any former (or future) massive neighbors. Therefore Uncertainty applies in this case.

;What is a light cone?

Let’s say we have two indivisible subatomic particles A and B. The particles in question are the size of a Planck’s Length. At one particular moment in their respective histories as ejecta from the Big Bang, they were in close proximity with each other.

But, over time, cosmological inflation will eventually separate A from B by the full length of the Universe.

So, let’s fast-forward to about a googol years from now, and suppose that particles A and B are the last two contiguous particles left from what was formerly our universe. Inevitably, cosmological inflation will compel these two relative particles to pass outside of each other’s respective event horizon. Then – voila – Heat Death Accomplished.

Here’s the kicker: I am assuming that the expansion of the universe is unrelenting even at sizes smaller than a Planck’s Length!

Indeed, in that light, you might say that it is Inflation itself that prevents an object smaller than a Planck’s length from having both determinate position and velocity. (!)

So let’s go there: Particle A is now entirely within its own universe. It is speeding away from the edge of itself at a relative rate equivalent to Hubble’s Constant, but now there are no other objects against which the inflation of space can be measured. No other particle is within its future lightcone, and vice versa.

From the point of view of Particle B, Particle A is now traveling faster than the speed of light (and vice versa).

What happens next?

Particle A is alone, imploding at rate that is the precise inverse of natural inflation. This is because inflation – a concept based on the relative distance between two objects in contiguous space – can no longer be measured. Space is defined, after all, by the distance light is able to travel through the universe and still be seen. Any theoretical object outside of the universe is necessarily traveling faster than light relative to the observer.  If a single object is isolated in space, its isolation is measured by the distance that light radiating from the object can travel before passing outside the event horizon of the universe. In this way, Particle A can be said to imploding relative to the speed of light.

The bicameral universe concept requires a particular lynchpin: the unification of The Hubble Constant with a Planck’s Length.

You would be right to call out the apparent discontinuity in my layman’s mixing of the terms “Hubble Constant” (an astronomer’s term) and “Planck’s Length”(from the discipline of quantum mechanics and theoretical mathematics). But, please, hear me out. (If you have read David Deutsch’s The Fabric of Reality, you already have several legs up on anyone else reading this.)

Here’s wikipedia’s definition of The Hubble Limit:

The Hubble Limit is a concept in physical cosmology that is related to the Big Bang Theory. It refers to the limit where objects receding from the observer are receding at the speed of light. It is named after the astronomer Edwin Hubble, who was the first to discover that objects on a galactic scale are moving away from us. In the aftermath of the Big Bang everything in the universe is flying apart, and due to the fact that the speed of light is constant further away objects appear to be receding at a faster velocity. Eventually an object will appear to have a velocity which is the speed of light, and an object at this point is known to be at the Hubble Limit.

Astronomers have noticed that, the farther away galaxies are from us, the faster they appear to be moving away from us. Objects move away from the observer at a predictable rate based on their physical proximity to that observer.

Most people think of, let’s say, a rock or a planet or a star when they think “object”. But so far as I know the Hubble Constant is true for ALL MASSIVE OBJECTS.

Stephen Hawking’s description of the Planck’s length is widely available in The Universe in a Nutshell. 176-178, 199.

Russian dolls within Russian dolls image, page 177:

Each doll represents a theoretical understanding of nature down to a certain length scale. Each contains a smaller doll that corresponds to a theory that describes nature on shorter scales. But there exists a smallest fundamental length in physics, the Planck length, a scale at which nature may be described by M-theory.

Wikipedia’s entry on Planck’s Constant is considerably more oblique. But the short of it is, a Planck’s length is a unit of measurement beyond which the Eternal Laws of Nature say no precise measurement can be made.

In this sense, a Planck’s length represents a physical barrier in SpaceTime.

The only other physical barrier that is comparable to this phenomenon is – a Black Hole.

No information in, no information out.

The Uncertainty Principle applies for both the Black Hole and the Planck’s length.

It is impossible to describe particles that are smaller than a Planck’s length because we cannot ‘see’ them or otherwise ‘interact’ with such particles. If the space inside a Planck’s length is subject to cosmic inflation, it follows that each area of observable space in my environment smaller than a Planck’s length contains at least one Micro-Black Hole (MBH).

That’s it: blackholes all around. Ash heaps of blackholes: that’s what universes are made of.

Inflation and Contraction Are Anthropic Constructions

In the Bicameral Universe model, the Big Bang is a single explosive event that propels massive ejecta in two equal but opposite directions in SpaceTime. (The rate of ejecta spewing from the Big Bang must be in excess of the escape velocity required to cross the event horizon between the massive Bicameral Pairs.)

Later on, inhabitants of this ejecta (like us), might lay peacefully in a warm field beneath a moonless night sky and study the heavens and ponder what on earth is going on?

Well, it’s like this: You, the Ejecta, looked up at the sky with your eyes and your telescopes and all your other complex information gathering devices, and you figured out that the universe was expanding and would seem to expand forever.

But what you didn’t know, my dear Ejecta, is that you have an equal and opposite counterpart who lives in potential in the other chamber of our Bicameral Universe. Your observation that time moves forward is actually a construct – or perhaps an emergent process – based on the uneven distribution of mass between the two chambers. (The chamber in which you find yourself is always inflating, while the imaginary opposing chamber is always deflating.) Consciousness itself is thus an outcome of your mind’s “uncertainty” over which side of the Bicamera it is occupying/observing at any one time.

Thus the very definition of “inflation” is dependent on an analog observation of Particle A’s velocity and trajectory relative to that of Particle B.

In that sense, “Inflation” requires an analog observer as much as the analog observer requires Inflation. Therefore, the Anthropic Principle applies.

Here, take a gander:

Each of the two opposing universes are represented by the cones in the above graphic. Each cone is a 3-dimensional rendering of 4-dimensional SpaceTime. In this grid, SpaceTime moves in two equal but opposite directions: Time begins at the Big Bang for both universes, while each suffers its own unique Heat Death

The Originating Point of the Big Bang is located at position 0,0. “North” is represented by the “+” pole and “South” by the “-” pole.

The Heat Death for each universe is defined by its respective maximum radius.

“North” represents the observed direction of inflation. In this model, we humans “live” in the “north” chamber of the figure 8, and this defines the range of our observable universe – which we interpret as inflating.

The “South” region of the model is strictly imaginary – but its existence is required by the Anthropic Principle, because without it, I am afraid, we poor humans would not even realize that we existed or – indeed – that we had conscious navigational choices to make as we sail the sometimes turbulent tributaries of the Multiverse.

We should think of the southern region of the model as an equal-but-opposite version of the northern region. It is almost a mirror-image.

The diagram above can be rendered symbolically as the Cup of the Holy Grail:

But the most important thing to grasp here is that the relative movement of mass-through-space in one chamber must be offset by an equal-and-opposite relative movement of mass-through-space in the opposite chamber (possibly through a dual-flow mechanism as illustrated in this Pentagonal Antiprism).

Human consciousness therefore is an emergent outcome of the staccato discontinuities between the side of the chamber that is inflating, and the side that is correspondingly deflating. (The passage of time that we perceive is an illusion populated by the end results of our past cumulative decisions.)

A more “concrete” explanation for the phenomenon we call the “Present” might be the following: two incredibly long but precisely balanced “trains” of causes (each carrying the entire mass of the universe), collide headlong into each other with such force that – while most of the mass involved is instantly annihilated, some of it is propelled outside the event horizon of either pair – making of itself a “third party observer” to its own simultaneous (but never the less sequential) “acts” of creation and annihilation. This would explain why the Present is Eternal, but can never be actively observed in the past tense or the future tense – an observer can only observe his own total annihilation in the present tense.

I submit that a disoriented observer (e.g., a newborn baby) experiences time as a totality without causes – it’s as though the paradoxical conflict between creation and destruction is solved by allowing both to exist forever and simultaneously (from the point of view of any observer). You might say this observer experiences an “eternity” of disassociated sensations, followed by a slow realization that causes (and choices) can allow this eternal observer to change the observable conditions of its environment – including the ultimate choice: to “turn off” the Eternal Observation.

I submit that the “Present” appears transitory because it is, in fact, living evidence of the event horizon predicted by MC2.

But MC2 remains constant even now – even here in the event horizon itself – and so light maintains its signature speed of C even from our vantage point, here in the “middle of the middle” where cosmic Inflation also predicts our location to be.

(I’m tempted here to quote Jack’s incredulous question from Nightmare Before Christmas: “.but what does it mean?“)

It means, I think, that the escape velocity for Time Travel is (probably) MC3.

But to get entirely out of the system (to the most Parsimonious rendition of it), you would need to cube that number again – giving you a grand total of 27 dimensions (or 26 + 1, where 1 = The Observer). Therefore, MC27 is the most humanly elemental explanation for the “state of things”.

From a theological standpoint, it seems to me that the Bicameral Universe model provides a solution to the age-old conflict in Catholicism regarding the “trinitarian” nature of God.

The Bicameral Universe model is obviously a BINARY system – as predicted by Professor Tipler’s Omega Point Theory. And also in line with Tipler, it describes the Trinitarian Nature of existence.

Tipler’s Trinitarian model explained Christ as the Body and Host of our existence, But the universe is not GOD – it is God’s creation. Trinitarianism is an Anthropic Construction. God Himself cannot be Trinitarian, because, with the Bicameral Universe model, God is a SINGULARITY that Observes 26 unique dimensions – 13 evenly matched pairs. Human beings appear adapted to an environment that uses only the first three dimensions. But this is only a small part of what God Observes.

I submit that God cannot be Trinitarian. Instead, A4=MC^3^3 is a more fair representation of how God might perceive our universe – from the outside looking in.

This is my summation:

1. TOE +

2. Origins of Human Consciousness +

3. Logical proof for the (Inevitable) Existence of God +

Here is my submission for a popular formula:


The 3-dimensional shape of this object is a double cone, which can be expressed algebraically as,

zˆ2/cˆ2 = (xˆ2 + yˆ2)/aˆ2

In my model, the double cone represents two 4-dimensional objects, where the axis between the apex and the vertex is Time. That is, “A” to the 4th power = MC cubed, cubed .where “A” represents all possible World lines for our universe. “A” is true for all observers. The Cartesian grid assumes four unique “A” quadrants. Each “A” must be cast as a subset of the other three imaginary quadrants – but (paradox alert!) any observer present in “A” universe must assume it exists in the only “A” universe. The only way out of the paradox is to assume that each quadrant contributes a single power. Thus “A” observed as a totality appears as A to the 4th power.

The author is a layman with no expertise in any of the professional fields mentioned above. The foregoing is strictly personal opinion..

Copyright 2006-2010. All Rights Reserved.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here