The Cyberphysics of Tomorrow's World Evolution Updated Plus Computers Using Imaginary Time and Hyperspace

When contemplating the theory of evolution, many people assume evolution belongs exclusively to the biological sciences. It's maintained here that complete comprehension also requires physics. Since discovery of gravitational waves Sep. 2015 is a recent milestone physics, it's fitting that evolution should be reassessed by that milestone. Without a conviction that time doesn’t exclusively operate a straight line and that time travel to the past is possible, science would have to totally agree with the evolutionary concepts Charles Darwin proposed. This article also attempts to combine Einstein's two Relativity theories and Unified Field Theory with quantum physics and tomorrow's hyper-computers. also uses the concepts of real, imaginary and complex time to try to bring cosmology's Big Bang theory, the Steady State's infinity and eternity, and the Inflationary theory into the 21st century. Einstein believed stars, planets, even quantum particles were part of, and not distinct from, the rubber-sheet geometry (the topology) comprising space-time. To read an explanation plain English of subuniverses or observable universes using topology, go to the intimately related - indispensably so - Topological monoverse at the end of this article. This says that, from a purely spatial aspect, there is no multiverse (universes existing alongside ours). But remember, it regards the 13.8 billion year old structure we live as merely a subuniverse within an infinite universe. It's saying there are no other universes beyond our infinite universe. each subuniverse is viewed as the entire universe, the multiverse does indeed exist. From the temporal aspect of the space-time union: everything space-time is unified into one thing - a product of the gravitational field. All past and future universes are unified with the present cosmos (is this the real meaning of the word multiverse?) In some circles, the multiverse is not regarded as science but as philosophy or even sci-fi. Referring to the latter, the following was stated on the program Catalyst on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and its edition of Tuesday, 1 March 2016 entitled SCIENCE OF SCI FI FILMS – FACT OR FICTION? (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4415534.htm) - science-fiction can give a false sense of how science progresses. To this, Professor Lawrence Krauss added, One of the things that always amazes me Star Trek is having a problem and they get the engineers to gather around and they solve the problem within an hour. Whereas the real world, as a scientist, it can take decades and baby steps to make any major progress. What about science's own work on the Unified Field Theory and Theory of Everything? Accomplished completely, these must surely allow any problem to be solved immediately (if not sooner) by providing access to all knowledge space-time. I agree that my proposals are based on many things that are still theory only. My ideas have been developing for 30 or 40 years, and I've found them to be very internally consistent (that's the way string theory has been described). String theory may have limits that future experiments* will reveal, but is worth pursuing at the moment. I think my ideas are worth pursuing - time will reveal their value or nonvalue. * According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction Special Relativity - Einstein wrote 1911 that It doesn't 'really' exist, so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. such a way that it could be demonstrated principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer. [Einstein, Albert (1911). Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkungzu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz. Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510]. Demonstration in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer is the same meaning as demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light. Cosmic unification via the gravitational field is one of my deep beliefs. The example of radiating gravity waves causing draining of energy does not incorporate this gravitational unification. Taking matter as an example - mass, EM (electromagnetic) energy and nuclear forces are capable of greatly varying degrees of renewal (from the microscopic to regeneration of a liver/rib to eventual total renewal) if matter and its properties are part of the G (gravitational) field. That field always exists and only changes form, including between matter and energy - the law of conservation says things always exist and merely change form. I have the most intense desire to understand how everything works (my main interest is cosmology). My feeling as I typed these thoughts has always been that they already exist (though, since physics' Unification appears to connect every point and time the Cosmos, not on early 21st-century Earth every case). And I'm just a student, learning about them. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying - If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself. Since part of me takes Einstein literally, I avoid equations and jargon as much as possible and prefer to write clearly plain English. “We need a very different view of basic physics. This is the time for radical, new ideas” (theoretical physicist Neil) Turok concluded early October, 2015. He believes that this is a great time human history for the revolution to occur.