Theory of Everything Archive

My ideas are, as far as I am able to judge, consistent with accepted science or at least with current scientific speculation. I cannot demonstrate or prove these ideas, but perhaps others can suggest experiments that would test the theory.

As the universe expands the omni-present electro-magnetic spectrum or light, the stuff of the universe, attenuates at 2.304E^-18% per second, and creates a total (supra) or partial (super) vacuum. Light rushes in to the vacuum – at the speed of light – and in some zones or spheres the light waves collide or merge at angles and at wave frequencies that reinforce the “speed” and cause colliding waves to spin, maelstrom, hurricane or tornado like; at 90 Billion Kilometres Per Second (KPS). This immense speed, C², creates a surface, and a fractal of primary matter (perhaps a Quark) is created from energy; following Einstein’s formula Energy=Matter X Light-Speed Squared (E=MC² ).

The Hubble universe constantly expands (the zone or sphere does not necessarily contract after expansion) and inrushing energy feeds the spinning fractal. As in a tornado, I speculate that, the spin draws in surrounding energy leaving a depleted zone around the vortex-sphere. This third vacuum, a surface-vacuum, attracts other fractals, while the constantly expanding spinning surface repels them. The dynamic thus created between repulsive and attractive forces is the dynamic tension that underlies all matter. At this pre-particle level no thing exists that can interfere with the expanding and spinning vortex. Stability and permanence and inertia are created by Hubble expansion.

The Overview

How EIG might operate

What is matter? Hydrogen baryons at 10 million degrees.

An article by Brian D. Fields, astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, in New Scientist 14 Feb 04, reminds me that science understands that all matter was created in the first 1 second after the Big Bang. His team estimates that the baryons – the free particles of neutrons and protons forged at 10 million degrees Kelvin – became Hydrogen 76% and Helium-4 24%, as the universe cooled. This is a timely reminder that counters my idea set out later in this paper that different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum may have formed the basic fractals or quarks of matter in different “colours” and that the fractals gave rise to different elements. All elements arise from Hydrogen. However – Brian Field’s article advances on thoughts on how the baryons were made or on the forces that cause particles to crystallise or precipitate from the hot soup of the Big Bang. Not having access to a cyclotron I can only assume that if a baryon is exploded (at 10 million degrees K) it yields “pure” energy (particle-less energy) that we know at the electro-magnetic field or light. The question of how this process reverses to turn light into particles of matter is at the heart of EIG. Fields addresses the existence of dark energy and dark matter without theorising as to what they are. EIG imagines they are in fact vacuums as the field attenuates due to Hubble Expansion.

NB – To correct and re-write texts below on “coloured light waves colliding”. What is an electron. Does the atomic nucleus grow? Yes. ( ? Different particles and perhaps elements result from primary fractals or quarks being formed through the mutually reinforcing collisions of different wavelengths. Wavelengths that do not match cannot combine with each other to form matter. This characteristic of the electromagnetic spectrum to keep separate and to maintain the integrity of specific signals, is evident in the transmissions and identities of millions of radio, TV and telephone transmissions that occupy the same space. When compatible wavelengths do combine, they create matter with a particular vibration (colour) that in turn may be the foundations of a specific element. ?)

Harvard’s ghost-particles, negative gravity and dark energy.

Friday 4^th Feb 2004. Stephen Battersby, in New Scientist 7^th Feb 04, reports the work of Nima Arkani-Hamed and his colleagues Hsin-Chia Cheng, Markus Luty and Shinji Mukohyama of Harvard University on ghost particles and the changes the team have made to Einstein’s relativity gravity calculations. The changes do not sabotage every aspect of relativity and yet predict a new gravitational field with two main areas – gravity as we know it – and a new gravity fluid that fills the universe. The fluid fills the universe, is made of massless ghost particles and each particle is stretched across the whole universe. This fluid is calculated to have “tension” as it stretches across the universe, which is the opposite of “pressure” (pressure has gravity) and is therefore proposed as the force that expands the universe – or the long sought negative gravity.

Does this fit with EIG? A fluid (presumably Dark Energy?) that stretches across the universe sounds like a definition of a field force. It is also similar to the concept of long “strings”. The universe is filled with a field of electro-magnetic energy (light) that can be detected at any point we care to test. Why posit a new “fluid”. If the universe is not infinite, if it has boundaries, and if the boundaries are expanding at my calculated 2.304E^-18% per second (which is an ever accelerating global expansion) then the field/fluid will attenuate, as the Harvard team calculates. What might be drawing out this attenuation is the total, unimaginable supra-vacuum of non-space time outside our universe. Whether or not the stuff of the universe (light or fluid) is being replenished (say, from one or more open singularities) does not concern this speculation. As the field attenuates and as it does so unevenly (clumps of matter, galaxies, matter-less lakes etc) it will feel the internal pull of super-vacuums, at every point, on every scale, at all times. These super-vacuums tug on the field which returns to fill them…. And so back to EIG, which still remains a viable concept for expert consideration.

Limitless numbers of macro and micro universes?

Tuesday 4^th Nov 2003.

Leonard Susskind, professor of physics at Stanford University writes today 4^th Nov 2003 in New Scientist which credits him with being one of the originators, if not the inventor, of String Theory. Will there one day be a convergence of EIG and String-Theory? Susskind’s article, (of which I can understand only snatches of what is written and I completely fail to understand any of the mathematics to which he refers or the need for imagining more than 4 dimensions – leaving me at a disadvantage), addresses quantum vacuums in which virtual particles are constantly created and annihilated, and bubbles arise in the inflating vacuum. He writes of bubbles forming within bubbles, some of which nucleate and start to grow.

EIG would respond that for a bubble to form there must be a surface, and EIG justifies surfaces as the membrane formed between an expanding zone, within which the electro-magnetic spectrum (light) briefly attenuates, thus creating a partial vacuum, thus attracting light to fill the vacuum, and the spinning that occurs when light collides in such a manner as to reinforce the rate of propagation of light to the degree that a vortex forms – one of the fractals of matter (perhaps a quark) in the universe. Around the vortex, which compacts energy, remains a depleted surface zone that feeds the compaction. This surface vacuum attracts, while the spin repels – and thus stable inertia of matter, and perhaps the cosmological constant, is created.

A major divergence from String Theory occurs in my EIG ideas, where Prof Susskind (and other physicists) seems to assume that the vacuums he cites are the cause of the expansion of the universe; that they somehow counteract gravity and must counteract gravity to prevent the collapse of the universe.

Whereas I simply assume they are the cause, or one of the causes of gravity, but I fail to ask what causes Hubble expansion. It just is; a given. The increase in the pace of expansion (how this is measured by science I do not know) would be due, in EIG terms, simply to the logical incremental addition of 2.304E^-18% per second to any zone being measured. The bigger the zone, the more it increases. “To he who hath shall be given.”

The more I read of String Theory (ST) and try to put it into context, the more I feel that ST is on the wrong tack and EIG is on a better tack.

But it would help if I re-read everything I have on ST and get to understand what the mathematicians are driving at. I’m sure that Stamford and other scientists can readily understand this simple idea - but I cannot understand their ideas. But I have a sneaking growing suspicion that EIG is more right than ST.

Summary to date – Oct 2003 – Is this the end of EIG?

With the recent (Oct 03) announcements, of the discovery of the signature signals of Cold Dark Matter (CDM), from Céline Boehm and Dan Cooper of Oxford University, my cherished “Expansion is Gravity” (EIG) theory may have to be abandoned. The zones, perhaps with diameters of Planck Length the smallest scale in particle physics, expanding at what I have calculated to be another minuscule rate of 2.304E^-18% per second, were envisaged by me partly to fill in the knowledge gap left by the mysterious CDM, that makes up 80% of the mass of the Universe. These researchers are proposing that CDM is not virtual vacuums or attractive “holes” in space time caused by expansion, as I imagine, but are particles with mass, with a characteristic signal emanating from the centre of the Milky Way, and therefore perhaps from the centre of all galaxies - “….the ….sharp signal, which has an energy of 511 kiloelectronvolts (keV), is believed to be due to the annihilation of electrons and positrons the antimatter equivalent of electrons.”

“…Says Hooper. "Since it's difficult to imagine how they could be slowed to a standstill, we were forced to consider a surprisingly light dark matter particle."

“By "light", the researchers mean one to 100 megaelectronvolts, which is between 1000 and 10 times lighter than a proton. Such a light particle is surprising because particle accelerators routinely create particles of this mass, so the particle should have revealed itself.”

The New Scientist report by Marcus Chown tell us that if the findings are confirmed then – “If dark matter really is made up of such light particles, every cubic centimetre of space in the vicinity of the Earth must contain a few tens of them. So you should be able to detect them in lab-based experiments.”

As I have little understanding of the issues involved and only the haziest notion of what a particle 1,000 times lighter than a proton might be or fit into particle tables, and as my cyclotron is undergoing routine maintenance for the foreseeable future, I’ll just have to wait to read a host of other scientific opinions and wait to hear the almost inevitable death-knell for my interesting idea EIG. But it is not quite dead yet. So it may be worth adding relevant facts and fiction to the file below.

On second thoughts, even if they do find CDM (see “Summary to date” next para) it still doesn’t explain what gravity is. For that gravitons and gravity waves would have to be found. So EIG still lives – but not in such rude health.

Sunday 12 October 2003:

Creatures of Light

Introduction, pre-EIG

The Universe is made of light, the electro-magnetic spectrum. Light is the basic “stuff” of the Universe and all things in the Universe are a manifestation of light. The serious gaze of the new born child, a creature, as we all are, made of light, constantly reminds us that the greatest mystery of physics is how life, intelligence, sentience and consciousness emerge from the electro-magnetic spectrum.

Paul Davies, writing in New Scientist on the 21 September 2002, sets out “seven wonders” of physics and his current preferred theories:

(1) What makes the Universe Tick? (The Big Bang & Superstrings)

(2) What’s the Universe made of? (Cold Dark Matter - CDM)

(3) Was Einstein’s antigravity really a mistake? (An assumed repulsive force to balance gravity)

(4) Why do we live in three dimensions? (Mathematicians assume there are many dimensions)

(5) Is time travel possible? (Probably not)

(6) Are we living in a cosmic colander? (Of black holes)

(7) How come I can ask these questions? (Consciousness.)

I would add to his list:

(8) What is Inertia?

(9) How are surfaces and objects formed and sustained?

(10) What is the organising principle and the power of Life?

And finally,

(11) Will Professor Stephen Hawking ever find his God?

Everyone would have their own list of universal wonders, each would be different and all would be valid. The wonders of the universe are probably infinite – there are certainly many times more questions than we have answers for. The way we answer such questions depends entirely on the accurate or inaccurate information we have and on the models we use to organise the information.

Models of Reality – before EIG

The most celebrated scientists, it seems, are those who produce the most readily understood models of reality that stand the triple tests of experiment, attacks from colleagues and of time. Such models include Empedocle’s elements; Lucretius’s atoms of light; Alhazen’s Optics; Kepler’s & Galileo’s Solar System; Gassendi’s photons; Newton’s Mechanics and Gravity; Casimir’s Effect; Michelson & Morley’s constant speed of light; Maxwells’ electromagnetic spectrum; Planck’s Black Body Radiation, Constant & Quanta; Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; Bohr’s collapse of the wave function; Bohr’s, Born’s & Heisenberg’s Copenhagen Interpretation; Einstein’s Relativity and Special Relativity; Bose’s Statistics; Fermi-Dirac’s statistics; Bell’s Theorem; Shrödinger’s impossible Cat; Feynman’s Diagrams & QED; Hubble’s Constant; Fred Hoyle’s Big Bang and Multiple Bangs; Crick’s & Watson’s Double-Helix; Hawking’s Radiation; and many, many, many more models of the whole and of parts of the system..

It is fair to say that at every stage of advancement in understanding, there are hundreds, and these days thousands, of brilliant scientists whose work contributes to the latest discoveries and to the confirmation of theoretical models. But, as on any stage, just a few of the actors get to share the spotlight of fame and success. Truly, each star turn does indeed “stand on the shoulders of giants” – and these days on the shoulders of teams of giants.

Models of reality are recognised as being just that – models. The more we delve down into the atom and soar up to the vast spaces of the universe, the less are we able to grasp and represent the reality of what we see. Just as an obituary of one-thousand words may appear to be an accurate description of a person and of their life, but be the slightest and palest shadow of the reality of that person; so scientific models are metaphors and similes of the reality they seek to describe. But models and labels are central and essential to our understanding and to our ability to think – and from well tested theories come practical applications. All the best models ultimately enable us to manipulate the stuff of the Earth and the power of the universe; even if we cannot complete the models and do not fully understand them.

From reading hundreds of scientific books and articles over forty-five years, I have come to a hazy understanding of how Life, The Universe and Everything is thought to work. What I have been unable to find, or unable to comprehend if it is out-there, staring me the face, is how the Hubble Factor that underpins the expansion of the Universe and the Big-Bang theory, fits into the current picture. Expansion is wholly accepted as the driving logic for the Big-Bang theory but thereafter it seems to have no part to play. John Gribbin quotes Einstein as writing in 1951 “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken”.

In like mind, here is a model that I have consciously brooded on for nearly forty, not fifty, years that attempts to tie-in Hubble while remaining faithful to accepted facts and theories, and explores new thoughts about light and its quanta and that other great mystery, gravity.

EIG Diagram

MAP, COBE and Some Astronomical EIG Numbers

Stephen Battersby reported in New Scientist on 15^th February 2003 that data from the Microwave Anisotropy Probe has been analysed providing an accurate age for the universe. He also takes the trouble to define the factors he cites which is unusual and refreshing. For future reference:

Age of the universe is 13.7 billion years

Shape is Flat

Age when light first appeared is 200 million years

Contents include:

4% ordinary matter

23% dark matter Nature unknown

73% dark energy Nature unknown

Hubble constant (expansion rate) is 71km/sec/megaparsec

Stephen Battersby also tells us that a megaparsec is 3.26 light years.

The MAP data supports the theory of INFLATION that imagines a period of very rapid expansion shortly after the creation/appearance of the universe.

If you work all this out and reduce it to a layman’s terms it accords closely with the factor I had set out (below) based on the reports that the edges of the visible universe recede from us at the speed of light.

The Hubble constant as stated above works out as the universe expanding at a minuscule percentage every second – of 0.0000000000000002303633783% or in handy mathematical format

It is 2.304E^-18% per second.

My figure was 2.348E^-18% per second. Thus affirming some glimmering of understanding of the factors and the issues.

If expansion is gravity – it must occur everywhere at all times. EIG proposes that the rate of refilling the attenuated energy vacuums that occur in matter, inside planets, for example, is held back momentarily and strengthened by the shells or surfaces around the fractals of matter (perhaps quarks) but such delay aside, let us apply Hubble to a six foot man.

Six foot man expands infinitely – says MAP and COBE

To get down to small enough units required to allow EXCEL to show the calculation, the man’s height, in his six foot high and six foot wide bubble of expanding space, had to be converted into millionths of millimetres – which are pretty small. Using the Hubble factor I extracted from the MAP report, 2.304E^-18% per second, our man would expand in a year by just 1.32 millionths of one millimetre – ignoring the cumulative effect. This would be unnoticeable to most of us and in fact is undetectable by normal measuring techniques as all the measures also expand at precisely the same rate. Is this rate enough to make him universally attractive?

Bear in mind the mechanism that would be at work: The trillions of spaces – say Planck lengths (Planck’s Length is 10^-35 metres, Hubble expansion is 10^-18 metres per second, or nearly twice the decimal scale; about a billion, billion times larger – but to squeeze that amount of expansion into Planck space, we can reduce the time to a billion. Billionth of a second) – occupied by the man’s material body, expand by this trivial amount. The QED or light energy attenuates creating virtual vacuums, attracting energy (light) to flow into the vacuums. These in turn partially evacuate the larger spheres around the space occupied by the man – partially because the surrounding sphere is larger than the inner sphere or spheres.

As sphere two goes into a partial vacuum state the surrounding sphere/s, sphere three, transfers energy inwards, itself attenuating but less than sphere two. This gives rise to the laws of gravity where the pull lessens by the square of the distance. This rate of in-falling of energy takes a second; the next second it occurs again. The process is inexorable and occurs throughout space. Therefore any one zone, say a sphere of Planck length, is a continuous conduit and pump for energy – from all directions and at the speed of light (or gravity). Would this multi-directional factor account for the MOND theory that proposes that at large distances gravity diminishes more rapidly than the law allows?

Any reader following this paper will by now have realised that the 23% Dark Matter and 73% Dark Energy – “Nature Unknown” – are explained by EIG as vacuums caused by expansion. They are holes not matter - QED and QED.

The MAP or more properly WMAP (W for Wilkinson) is a satellite positioned 1.5 million kilometres further away from the Sun than the Earth. It looks outwards into the blackness of space. If it looked at the Earth or the Sun or even into the centre of the Milky Way, it would be blinded by the microwave energy from those bodies. It reads microwave energies between 20 and 90 gigahertz and is sensitive to variations down to 1/25^th millionth of 1 degree of temperature. What WMAP is measuring is the echo from the Big Bang that fills the universe with a back-ground microwave energy of 2.7 degrees above absolute zero (2.7 degrees Kelvin). How it does this I haven’t the faintest idea – but we just have to believe the astrophysicists.

PRE-MAP REPORT.

The sphere’s or zones that expand, range in size down from the whole universe, with a radius of 12 to 15 billion light years, (at 12 Billion light years being 113,451,059,465,856,000,000,000 kilometres or 1.E+23 kilometres from me or you, at the centre of our known universe to the visible edge.) and zones can have as small a diameter as Planck’s Length of 10^-35 metres or (0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 metres). Measured at the farthest horizon, using 12 billion light years, the universe is thought to be expanding at the speed of light, hence the invisibility of matter beyond that horizon. The percentage per second of this expansion is 0.000000000000000264248267% or 2.6E-18 % per second. This minuscule constant rate of expansion attenuates the fabric of the universe and underlies the all pervasive, eternal tug of gravity. The super-vacuums so formed are filled at the speed of light from the immediate surroundings that leaves a gap to be filled, that tugs on the adjacent spheres ad infinitum, in all directions at all times. This is at least part of the force we call gravity.

NB – build in here that Einstein predicted that the universe would be found to be expanding – but he withdrew from this position as it was too absurd, until Hubble demonstrated expansion through his interpretation of observations. Then Einstein embraced his own conclusions again. The key point from this information is that it is the inclusion of gravity in the mathematical models created to wind-back the universe from the present day to the Big-Bang that dictates the need to propose a period of rapid inflation in the first micro-seconds. It would be interesting to know what the models would tell us if they were based on the EIG theory. If expansion is a major cause of or contributor to gravity, then winding back or shrinking the universe would switch off that factor – and remove the need to imagine an Inflationary Period to account for the homogeneity of temperatures (background radiation) across the universe.

Dark Matter and Energy – Reverse Gravity.

Elsewhere in this paper is mentioned Einstein’s theory about dark matter and dark energy that he concluded ought to push rather than pull. EIG fundamentally requires the pushing force, caused by expansion, that in turn creates the pull force that is gravity. EIG is based on the idea that between these two forces is a dynamic tension that is inertia and that binds fractals together to form particles. This dark energy conundrum is again raised in a new book Echo of the Big Bang, by Michael Lemonick, Princeton University Press. $24.95 . EIG smugly thinks of course that it has the answer to dark matter and dark energy – its vacuums and partial vacuums throughout space.

QED – Feynman and the eightfold path.

Diagram relating to text below see:

.http://www.noelhodson.com\index_files\9Spheres\9Spheres.ppt