Dewey B. Larson
755 N.E. Royal Court
Portland, Oregon 97232
May 9, 1985
Mr. Jan Sammer
560 Riverside Dr., Apt. 3Q
New York, NY 10027
In your correspondence with Dr. Gribbin I suggest that you call his attention to the fact that he has already expressed approval of the idea of a cyclic universe of the kind that emerges from the development of my theory of the universe of motion; that is, one in which the “arrow of time” is subject to a reversal. In his book Our Changing Universe he mentions a suggestion by Paul Davies that postulates such a reversal, and he comments that this idea “neatly explains a whole host of physical puzzles,” and even that it “accounts for all the observed properties of the universe.”
Davies’ suggestion is admittedly pure speculation, without any development of detail, and without specifying any mechanism for accomplishing the time reversal that is the essence of the hypothesis. On the other hand, my theory is deduced from basic physical premises, and developed in full detail. All aspects of the cyclic process, including the reversal mechanism, are not only clearly specified, but also identified with observable physical phenomena.
The feature of my theory that has enabled developing it in full detail, while Davies’ hypothesis has remained no more than a speculation, is that instead of calling for a periodic reversal of the physical activity of the entire universe, my theory puts the reversals on an individual aggregate basis. Matter enters the low speed sector in which we are located in the form of particles aggregated in time but widely dispersed in space, The primary processes of this sector of the universe operate to aggregate this matter in space and disperse it in time. Eventually, the mature aggregates are explosively ejected into the high speed sector, where the entire process is inverted. This eliminates the most objectionable feature of Davies’ suggestion, the periodic reversal of the direction of physical processes, a reversal for which there is no physical evidence and no plausible hypothesis as to how it could be accomplished. In my theory, physical activity always maintains the same direction in each sector, and the cyclic pattern results from a continuous interchange between the inversely related sectors.
Since Dr. Gribbin was able to recognize the potential in Davies’ rather vague hypothesis, he should certainly be able to see that our new version of the underlying idea converts that potential into a reality.
D. B. Larson