CLOSED VS. OPENED SYSTEMS & SPIN                                                                                                                 Back to Main

Today's science has presented us with a vast amount of information regarding our "alleged universe".
I say "alleged", because we really don't know if it is a bounded "CLOSED" system or an unbounded
OPENED" system. If it is bounded, then we can safely say that it is indeed a "UNI-VERSE" as far as
we are concerned. Maybe it is really a CLOSED SUB-VERSE within a larger CLOSED VERSE (NESTED VERSES)
within an UNBOUNDED OPENED SYSTEM or OPENED-VERSE. We just do not really know. Two things are for certain.
1. If it is an OPENED SYSTEM, then we cannot logically call it a UNI-VERSE & we will never know everything about it.
2. If it is a CLOSED SYSTEM, then it matters not what is outside the enclosed "walls", because we
are isolated within.
Nevertheless, we persist in wanting to increase our understanding.

When we talk about "space" without mentioning "time", we increase the possibility of discovering a "closed" system.
But what does it mean when we speak of space being a "closed" or "opened" system.
Unless my English escapes me, to be "closed" means there is a wrapper, or enclosure, that completely isolates all within.
With respect to those enclosures of space alone, we can identify 4 possible types of uniform symmetrical enclosures as
being a sphere, a dodecahedron, a cube, and a tetrahedron. But there is good reason to eliminate the
first two possibilities, ie, the sphere and the dodecahedron. If we seek symmetry, then there is no way that
a sphere or dodecahedron can be broken up into smaller identicle particle spaces in a SEAMLESS MANNER.
By that, I mean there is no symmetrical way of fitting all the smaller like-pieces into the enclosure without
having some unfilled room inside. But we know we can do this with a CUBE. So much for closed vs opened systems for now.

Our picture of our "universe" today is huge. On the large scale , it goes back to the BIG BANG 14 billion years ago
& talks about DARK MATTER & DARK ENERGY, along with BLACK HOLES. We have Enstein's expanded laws of physics
that includes time as a dimension. It presents us with the TWIN PARADOX & the fact that gravity changes our clocks'
tics. Our updated science now talks about the FABRIC OF SPACE, as if space were in fact material.
On the very small scale, QUANTUM MECHANICS talks about sub-atomic particles identified by their "spin".
And it presents us with the possibility of there being an N-DIMENSIONAL QUANTUM WORLD where things get really strange.
All of this somehow fits together in what we call our universe, leaving us to wonder,

As far as I am concerned, there is one element of great interest that might hold a clue... "SPIN".
In another link, MAPPING SPACE-TIME, I have already described the manner in which we can graphically represent
SPACE-TIME by employing POLAR COORDINATES. In that description I used the analogy of a wheel
rolling along the Z-AXIS. So I was really talking about "SPIN", but only for the purpose of
developing a new reference system to encorporate the element of TIME. I did not go into any
more detail on "spin" in that description. So I choose now to pursue the question of SPIN.

In analyzing "spin", we envision a real or virtual object in space (excluding time) & note that
Based upon the fixed X-AXIS, we can establish two other ORTHOGONAL DIRECTIONS, Y & Z, thereby
defining the Y-Z (OR Z-Y) PLANE OF SPIN much like the face of a clock. The ANGULAR
DIRECTION, a, is in the Y-Z PLANE OF SPIN & measured as the clockwise angle between say the +Z-AXIS &
a radial line emanating from the origin (intersection of Y & Z axis) which spins about the X-axis just
like the dial of a clock. When the spinning radial line overlaps with the +Z-AXIS, the polar angle
is 0 or 360 degrees. When the radial line overlaps with the -Y-AXIS, the polar angle is 90 degrees.
Certainly this basic setup is not impossible to see, since we encounter it every day. <>br>
So now let's ask ourselves if we can identify any relationships between spin & linear distance &/or
spin & time. We first need to identify the units of measure by which we measure spin.
Clearly, the NUMBER OF REVOLUTIONS, R, is the most basic way to measure spin.

With respect to linear distance, the relationship between spin & linear distance has been understood
for years using the simple geometric equation, D = pi x d x R, where
D = distance, pi = the well known constant ratio, 3.14, d = diameter, & R = revolutions.
But d (diameter) = 2 x r (radius from the axis of spin).
Therefore, D = pi x 2 x r x R = 2pirR. (Simple algebra)
It should be noted that the smaller r is, the greater R must be to achieve the same distance.
In my MAPPING SPACE-TIME link, I pointed out the importance of making r as small as possible
for the purposes "digitizing" distance.

With respect to time, we intuitively suspect that REVOLUTIONS CANNOT OCCUR WITHOUT TIME (an assumption).
And the most common relationship between spin & time is expressed as the ratio of REVOLUTIONS
compared to elasped time, or REVOLUTION PER MINTUTE, RPM.

At this point, we want to bring up some interesting obervations about spin in the real world.

1. A spinning object that has any mass wants to maintain its axis of spin, resisting any attempts
to change it. Who has not played with a top as a child? Who has not riden a bicycle?

2. The RPM of spin increases or decreases inversely with the length of the radius from the spin axis.
Who has not watched an ice skater perform?
In our mechanical world we can watch a spinning ice skater extend her arms to slow down spin
and retract her arms to speed up spin.
r x RPM = a constant.

Given this last observation, r x RPM = a constant, we now have the relationship between distance, spin, & time.

r (distance) x R (revolutions) /T (time) = C (a constant)

But we must be aware that the distance variable is r, the radial distance along the Z-axis from the center of spin.

we have to wonder whether or not there is any such relationship between spin and distance along the X-AXIS of spin.
Our entire concept of space is based upon the idea of a straight line, the shortest distance between 2 points.
Suppose this concept is not quite correct?
Looking in the X direction, suppose that what we see as a straight line is not really straight at all,
but is really something more like a cork screw influenced by spin?
After all, Einstein told us that gravity bends light & changes clock tics. Maybe spin does too?
So this does not seem an outrageous proposition.

Would it not be interesting if a similar relationship existed between spin and distance along the X-AXIS
We have all seen ice skaters do a squat while spinning.
Perhaps this squat increases their spin even as their leg stretches out which would slow spin.
Perhaps we should compare the height of the ice skater before spinning to her height as she is spinning.
It may be that spin shrinks distance along the X-Axis. Or it may be that spin stretches distance along the X-Axis.
As another example, consider a large spinning planet. What do we see?
A bulging at the middle. This would suggest the possibility of increased spin contributing to decreased length
along the axis of spin. And then we see pancake-like galaxies which further support the idea of an inverse
relationship between spin & distance along the spin axis.

Another question we might ask is "Was there spin before the Big Bang?"
Can we not suppose that the "seed" of the Big Bang was spinning before the explosion?



We really need two reference systems to make measurements.
One is to represent fixed directions in space that are identified before any time or motion has occurred
along the fixed axis of spin, ie, initial conditions. It is the instantaneous or static reference system.
The other is to represent the directions in space after time or motion has occurred.
It is the dynamic reference system, the one that has moved from the initial state.
This fact came up when we found it necessary to both connect & disconnect the axle to the wheel for the
purposes of measuring angular direction & revolutions. The physical equivalent is a spinning axle within a

fixed axle. This being the case, it is far to say that time is not a separate
direction by itself, but progresses in parallel with the axial direction of
spin. Time would be orthogonal to the plane of spin. So the representation of
time as an independent direction is incorrect within the context of a static
reference system. Thus there appears to be no real advantage of departing from
our current methods of depicting space, ie, (X, Y, Z). In addition, since it is
unknown whether or not time can be enclosed, we are left to conclude that the
reality of space-time is an opened system within which we can enclose space alone.

To close, I offer the following diagram depicting the two reference systems separated by time. (below)
In my model, I considered the possibility of a rigid connection between the X & Y directions,
which, if rigid, would prove that spin is a component of axial direction. But I have not concluded that yet.

Also shown here is a smarter person's picture of spin. (below)
What in most interesting about this is that spin is shown happening in all 3 orthogonal directions.
Probably an excellent picture on any scale, ie, quantum sizes & astrophysical sizes.
And who is to say these directions do not keep bending, SPIRALING OFF into the distance?

Certainly the author could have presented the 3 colored bars as being straight directions.
The green bar is the main axis of spin, X, where the red & blue bars are the Y & Z directions.
The author has chosen to bend the bars at some short distance after emanating from the box where they do
a 180 degree turn in the reverse direction, thus giving the appearance of a "hexapus", not an octopus.
So it would seem there might be a greater message for us, but what?

Notice the box surrounding the point of origin. It is representative of a "closed" system. Outside the box,
the main axis of spin (the green bar) appears not to be rigidly connected to the box, doing only 180 degrees
of rotation for every 360 degrees of box rotation. And it does not flex or bend in its motion as do the other axis.
The red & blue bars do flex as they rotate 360 degrees in sync with the box & may or may not
be rigidly connected to the box. But more than likely they are not rigidly connected, being more like a crank
or drive shaft passing through the box. Also notice that for every 360 degrees of box rotation that the ending
positions of the red & blue bars reflect only 180 degrees of twisting, because on 1 turn the blue bar passes
over the green bar, where on the next turn the blue bar is under the green bar. The motion of the red bar is
the same as the blue bar. The question remains "What causes the 3 bars to bend?"

All I can say is "WOW!".

Funny image

And finally, what about the TWIN PARADOX?
The following diagram illustrates how the measurement of the speed of light turns out
to be the same despite a shorter distance measurement under conditions of acceleration,
because the clocking mechanism changes with speed. THE FASTER YOU GO, THE SLOWER YOUR CLOCK.
This means if there are two twins of the same age, & if one goes into space while the other
stays home, the space traveler will age slower than the one who stays home.
So if you want to stay young, keep on traveling.