The sentient universe. TOE Theory of
Everything, TOE, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Instantons, QED, Quarks, Universal
Fractals, Universal Theory, Universe, an alternative to String Theory, Hubble
Expansion, Gravity, Fundamental Forces, Not String Theory, spinning straw into
gold, matter from energy, forming surfaces, double-slit experiment, prime
matter, prime numbers, QED, DNA transmission.
New Model of the Universe – V7 – copyright
–
<a
href="http://www.tinycounter.com" target="_blank" title="counter"><img
border="0" alt="counter"
src="http://mycounter.tinycounter.com/index.php?user=noelhodson"></a>
Short, pictorial, overview of these speculations
http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/Life-Universe-Everything-8Mar2011.pdf
Updated
04
January 2012
PRESESENCE & ABSENCE
Higgs Bosons & Vacuums.
Look for the presence of matter
AND for the absence of energy.
TOE Theory of Everything TOE
EIG Expansion is Gravity
&
The
sentient universe
Email:
CLICK
for TOE Archives, articles and work notes
Home Page - http://www.noelhodson.com
CONTENTS
What this website discusses – an executive summary.
Expansion is Gravity - 2007 – the EIG model
4 January
2012 – Structure of the universe - Aether-Matrix & Pauli.
3 DEC
2011 – A short, horrified anthropological diversion.
3 AUGUST
2011 – Music of the spheres – structure of the universe.
26 JUNE
2011 – Photon Aether, solves spooky action at a distance.
9 May
2011 – Heretical physics.
4
February 2011 – From physics to metaphysics and metaphors.
RYDBERG’S CONSTANT – IDIOT’S GUIDE
22 Jan
2011 – Spinning on their axis?.
18 Jan
2011 – Immortality & the Power of Inertia
26
October 2010 – White Holes & Sinks
24
October 2010 – Alpha, Aether and Inertia.
10 Sept
2010 - How Many Photons make you? What is your sphere of influence? Click the link…
http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/Creatures-of-Light-SEPT-2010-V1.xls
12 April
2010 – Quarks – Rest Mass – Protons – Neutrons – EIG still works, OK !
BROOKHAVEN - ECHO OF EIG’s VORTICES
22
February 2010 – Quark-Gluon plasma forms vortices.
NOT NEARLY THERE – QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE?
25
January 2010 – Bouncing photons and constant in-falling.
1 DEC 09
– The Electric Universe - A dilemma:
The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill &
David Talbot - 3 Nov 09.
Heavyweight empty space. 28 Sept 09.
Is the Casimir-Vacuum gravity? – 20 August 09.
Melvyn Bragg & Co - vacuums or not? – 30 Apr
09
“Ooops” Change to the expansion of the universe
constant – 11 March 09
“Spooky” action at a distance – 21 Feb. 09
“All the
world’s a hologram” – 17 Jan 09 & 19 Jan 09.
Three
illuminated thoughts - 2 November 08.
Wikipedia
- Massless particles
The LHC
and a contradiction - 12 September 08.
The sentient
universe and how humans alter it. 15 July 08
Is this the EUREKA moment? 28 March 2008.
Frank Close, The Void & that pesky Aether –
18 January 2008
Particles or Waves – 24 March 2007
(An unpublished) Letter to New Scientist –
“Inflation” 1 March 2007
Dark Energy – Cosmological Constant –
Quintessence – 15th February 07
Reconciliation – mathematical task – 25th
September 06
Aether or Ether or neither – 12th
September 06
Bubbles & Black Holes – 24th July
06
Making dark matter – 15th July 06
Water is the most likely laboratory to test EIG -
10th April 06
Descriptive Essay on EIG – how it might work
Gravitational Repulsion at Long Range – Stephen
Battersby NS 24th Sept 05
7 DEC 05
– A diversion into Intelligent Design & Is the LIFE FORCE the 5th
fundamental energy?
Instanton – reproduced from New Scientist 6 August
2005.
The holographic universe – thoughts on the
Aether.
Memo on March 05 Scientific American article,
Misconceptions about the Big Bang. - 17 March 05
Memo on the double-slit experiment – 15 March 05
Memo on Matter and Anti-Matter – 25th
November 04
Note on the Music of the Primes – 27 October 04
MAP, COBE
and Some Astronomical EIG Numbers
Six foot
man expands infinitely – says MAP and COBE
Sloan
Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
Radio and
TV signals – permanent patterns in Space - inertia
Casimir
and EIG – gravity within dense matter.
Letters to science magazines (not published)
What this website discusses – an executive summary.
1) That
gravity is due to Hubble Expansion of the universe – a stretching or
attenuation of the universal energy fields at 6.819E-19 %
per second
that creates diverse vacuums which attract matter and energy on every scale,
everywhere.
2) That the Aether exists – being a structure made
by the criss-crossing of fields and waves and particles, everywhere. The Aether connects everything to
everything. Any change requires
“permission” or accommodation from everything else that exists. (NB – I want to
marry this to Inertia, which keeps the universe as it is).
3) Dark Matter is the combined pull from the
momentary vacuums.
4) Dark Energy is the depletion, reduction of field
power, mutual letting go which occurs in the electromagnetic field when matter
is formed and precipitates out of the field at E=MC2.
5) That the momentary vacuums, of diverse
strengths, attract field energies (light) which collide in the vacuums and
sometimes make a fundamental particle, quark or basic fractal which are
spinning tornado like entities binding the energy. These are too small to be
disrupted by most of the other phenomena in the universe; and they bind
together through mutual vacuum and Casimir type forces – maintained by Hubble
Expansion. This contributes to Inertia.
6) That the universe, the Aether, is holographic
and these holograms, being complete globular models of the whole etched by
light, at every scale from the size of the whole universe down to the minimum
Planck scale, contribute to Inertia.
7) That all sub-atomic particles act in a similar
way to electrons in a telephone wire, converting from electric current to
magnetic wave and back again, infinitely. This implies that every particle
coalesces onto a centre at a density of E=MC2, and expands back to
field-energy, to at least fill the space occupied by that amount of energy and
probably to the edges of the universe – and then reforms. This is the pulse of the universe, organised
by we know not what; acting on all matter including us humans. We, and all phenomena, re-posit ourselves
continuously.
8) That consideration ought to be given to a new
force in physics alongside the nuclear, gravitational and electrical forces –
the Life-Force - which organises complex systems and energies (Chaos Theory) up
to and including intelligence and sentience, wherever we look in the
universe.
Expansion is Gravity - 2007 – the
EIG model
(NB - This concept is NOT following the Einstein thought-experiment
that if the surface of, for example, the Earth is expanding, that the upward or
outward movement of the surface under our feet would be indistinguishable from
gravity; however valid that thought may be. Nor is it String-Theory or
Multiverse or Curled-up-Hidden-Dimensions
theory).
As the universe expands, as found by Hubble, the
omni-present electro-magnetic spectrum or light, the observable boundary of the
universe, and every imaginable sphere therein, attenuates at 2.304E-18% 6.819E-19 %
per second, and creates a total (supra) or partial (super) vacuum. Light moves 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 in a vortex, at perhaps 90 Billion
Kilometres per Second (KPS). This immense “speed”, C2, creates a
surface between the vortex and its surroundings, and a fractal of primary
matter (perhaps a Quark) is created or spun from the energy; following
Einstein’s formula Energy=Matter X Light-Speed Squared (E=MC2). All zones or spheres of every size,
attenuating with the “quantum-pulse” of expansion-and-pause, create the subtle
and minuscule force of gravity – everywhere.
The Hubble universe constantly expands (all zones or
spheres, some of which might be as small as the Planck length, do not
necessarily contract after expansion) and inrushing energy feeds the spinning
fractal. As in the vortex of a tornado, 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 (Hubble
expansion) 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, fractal level no thing exists that can interfere
with the expanding and spinning vortex. Stability and permanence and inertia
are created by Hubble expansion. Dark
matter, and its theoretic “extra” gravity, may not be matter – but the
temporary attenuation of the every part of the field.
This event is the moment when energy from the energy field
(light) becomes matter. As it requires a great deal of energy to make a small
amount of matter, the immediate impact on the energy field is to deplete or
partially reduce the energy of the field. This reduction of and locking-up of
power in matter weakens the inter-attraction of the electro-magnetic field,
which then further expands. The more matter that is created the more the field
expands locally. Thus Dark Energy – the mysterious repulsive force - is in fact
the releasing of the brake as the field, which is or which contains the
universe, is depleted and its mutual attraction is weakened.
The rapidly spinning fractals thus created, throughout the
universe, may initially be spinning on any axis of orientation, until their
surface vacuums draw them together and from many collisions they harmonise
their spins. Solo fractals may
spontaneously unwind and revert to energy.
Fractals in stable and mutually reinforcing relationships may persist
for long periods. I would like to explore the neat thought that clumps of
fractals (say Quarks) which are made of prime numbers of fractals, persist.
A single fractal made or held in, say, a single Planck sized
sphere is in contingent relationship with all adjoining (empty) spheres which
are expanding-pausing with the quantum pulse. The solo fractal may unwind – or
be drawn in any direction at the speed of light into any adjoining sphere, as
it expands. Thus, to fit the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, fractals of
matter may appear and disappear, or may move in any direction at any time –
but, one can imagine a preferred direction being created from sphere to sphere
by the original orientation of the field – which the fractal is likely to
follow.
To complicate the calculation “quantum-expansion-pause”
arithmetic further, each (imaginary) Planck sphere is not only surrounded by
interpenetrating spheres of the same size, but each sphere is also at the
centre of an infinite (imaginary) set of
ever larger nested spheres, like Russian Dolls, expanding out to the extremity
of the universe. The calculations of the vacuum powers of these ever expanding
zones, of every size, are truly bewildering.
4
January 2012 – Structure of the universe - Aether-Matrix & Pauli.
The Aether-Matrix (that I propose as a fundamental scientific fact of the universe) formed by the electromagnetic signals or waves of all phenomena of all sizes, creates zones or spheres on all scales; each sphere is unique in that it “sees” the entire universe from a different angle and on a different scale than all other spheres. One of the forces that holds these spheres in place and contributes to the inertia of the universe is the Casimir effect. (See slide summary http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/Life-Universe-Everything-8Mar2011.pdf
or
read the paragraphs below).
Given
the existence of the Aether-Matrix; it has a large-scale structure that
necessarily changes slowly, over eons of time as galaxies etc change position,
while the sub-atomic detail, the information, within the structure changes instantaneously
and constantly as the Aether-Matrix is informed and reformed by signals from
all phenomena; such as the human brain (see the slides). On a human scale, the Aether-Matrix is a
permanent, rigid, inert scaffolding that supports phenomena such as our
bodies. So, how do we form and move
through or in it?
As
stationary objects, we occupy a number of Aether-Matrix unique spheres. Their
unique identity confers uniqueness on us (and all phenomena). When we move, say
at walking pace, we may not alter the location of any spheres as each is a
holographic representation of the entire universe, but we re-posit or
reposition ourselves by applying energy to occupying new spheres and forming
ourselves anew in a new location. We colonise and appropriate the new spheres
with intention (and perhaps sometimes with consciousness). So, the universe, the Aether-Matrix remains
still (though constantly changing its information at a sub-atomic level) and we
dissolve and reform step by step, breath by breath, thought by thought.
Two
humans or any defined phenomena cannot occupy the same spheres. This is in
accord with the Pauli exclusion-principle at a sub-atomic scale and is
self-evident at a macro-scale. If, for
example, a laboratory reared Oxbridge physicist attempted to occupy the
precisely same spheres currently colonised by Genghis Khan, a merger would be
resisted and the most probable outcome can be calculated by reference to their
relative energies. Similarly, if Genghis
Khan insisted that his sword, scimitar or dagger should occupy some of the
spheres colonised by the physicist, then the latter is likely to move rapidly
to new spheres or, and this is important, the phenomenal pattern intended and
maintained by the physicist will be substantially disrupted, perhaps to the
point where the energetic intention is overwhelmed and the entire pattern
disintegrates. Similarly, should a swarm
of cholera bugs invade the spheres occupied by Genghis Khan, they might well
prove to be more integrated and energetic than him, and thus persuade him to
re-locate in the Aether-Matrix.
What
the above parable illustrates is that the entire Aether-Matrix supports and
accommodates all and any phenomena of whatever scale. The energy required for phenomena to change
location in the macro Aether-Matrix is relative to size or mass and the rate of
change or speed – and, of course, to what might already be occupying some or
all of the desired spheres.
3
DEC 2011 – A short, horrified anthropological diversion.
The Guardian 3
DEC 2011, reports the terrible and shocking news that in the
Such
astonishing bullying and killing of helpless victims seems so alien and deeply evil
that the subject warrants some analysis.
(1) Sexual Highs – Cases such as Rosemary and Fred West who tortured and
killed women – and other infamous cases of sexual sadism - attest to the rare
addiction of attacking others for sexual “highs”. Such motives underlie the
medieval Witch Trials and today’s punishments in 3rd world regions of stoning,
flogging and imprisoning young women for “sins”. (2) Repressed Incest – Fathers,
uncles and other adult males might resent the girls bestowing favours on their
(non-tribal) suitors. Such resentment becomes perverted into a need to punish
the sexually attractive girl for the “sinful” feelings in the aroused male
relatives. Attacks and rapes are then justified. (3) Sexual competition – Most communities
have historically created wars to justify the old sending the young men to
their deaths; leaving the young women for the tribal leaders. Some ancient communities
did not need wars; the elders simply had the power to own exclusive harems.
Such behaviour is common in animals – for example bull seals, stags, etc. (5) Bullying and Oppression – all communities
contain a proportion of cruel bullies, male and female; who emerge whenever politics
and customs allow. These “honour”
families are examples of how the basest of behaviour can be normalised in secretive,
closed primitive groups. (6) Anthropological
Roots – Troupes of primates, including our nearest relatives, chimpanzees, similarly
attack their own children over mating habits. It seems that this evil also exists
in nature, even among the unconscious and “innocent” primates.
Perhaps the
only cure for the madness is evolution, accelerated by education. In the
meantime, advanced civilisations must actively protect the vulnerable by
applying existing laws.
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav
Restrictive
mating, where the dominant male restricts other males from mating with estrous
females in the community, consortship mating, where an adult pair leave the
community for several days to weeks, and extra-group mating, where females
leave their communities and mate furtively with males from nearby communities
(Goodall 1986; Gagneux et al. 1999). Chimpanzee social and mating groups do not
always overlap, given the variety of reproductive situations. This may have
evolved because females have limited choice in mates after committing to a
community, and the dominance hierarchy of males often dictates which males an
estrous female will mate with. By having multiple strategies, females can
expand the pool of males from which they choose while not losing the important
support of the males in their communities (Gagneux et al. 1999). Having
multiple strategies also maximizes the chances of males' reproductive success;
they are able to vary, throughout their lives, their mating strategies with
depending on their position in the dominance hierarchy.
************
3
AUGUST 2011 – Music of the spheres – structure of the universe.
Waves in
water, air, rock, magma, electromagnetic fields, and I suspect in molecules,
atoms and atomic particles share a common pattern in that they all strive to be
expanding spheres. Planets, moons, stars and perhaps galaxies also tend to be
spherical. Why many galaxies are plate and saucer-shaped needs might perhaps be
accounted for by their environment. Most life forms are spherical albeit with
wilful protrusions into their environment; cells, curled up DNA, seeds,
embryos, etc. Light, sound, material vibrations, planets, solar systems and
energy, all propagate as spheres. If uninterrupted, they would be perfect
spheres – so perhaps the ancient Greeks were right. But they, all phenomena, and we the people,
are not alone and unimpeded. All phenomena in the universe have to accommodate
all other phenomena. We, and everything, are in contingent relationships in an
existing field; which we may as well call The Aether. Every energetic event, whether massively
obviously explosive or minutely covertly static, whether persisting for eons or
milliseconds, is in fact a dynamic system in motion, propagating as a sphere.
Much of what we observe in science is the intersection of these (would-be)
expanding spheres with the in-situ universe or Aether. Thus, we look at any
part of the sphere, expanding in waves from a central event, and find a
particle, which, we then observe, propagates along a line dictated by the
expansion. Reminding ourselves that everything we observe is of, on or in an
expanding sphere, albeit often not able to expand, or remain spherical and
therefore quivering in-situ, shifts our perception and thus the basic models of
the universe. This structural law, the music of the spheres, could account for
so many westerners becoming as near spherical as possible – with their limbs
protruding just and only sufficiently to allow locomotion to the next full-fat
meal.
26
JUNE 2011 – Photon Aether, solves spooky action at a distance.
Anil Ananthaswamy writes in New Scientist 25 June 2011, page 13, of spooky action at a distance and quantum entanglement; citing recent experiments where “a single photon exists in three locations”. I am reminded that light, or a single photon, does not actually travel as might a bullet from a gun. Light propagates. It is stimulated from/by an energetic event and it illuminates the surrounding space as a sphere. Just as electrons in a telephone cable do not travel along the wire but excite electrons in-situ via a carrier wave, and just as a shout or call does not propel a stream of air from mouth to ear across a ravine, and just as electricity does not push electrons from a dynamo through wires to the socket in your home, but excites in-situ electrons; light moves outwards in spheres and propagates by contingent relationships with in-situ photons. The energy wave energises in-situ photons and moves on at 300,000 KPS. This spherical radiation of light is ubiquitous, obvious and self-evident. Most current thinking has difficulty with the concept of in-situ photons, everywhere, which implies the Aether. However, current thinking is probably wrong (See my holographic notes below). The implications of spheres of light include the light being detectable, after one second, from any compass point or observers’ locations, simultaneously, even if the locations are each 300,000 km from the centre of the energetic event – thus being 600,000 km apart. If the energetic event, the stimulus, is just one-photon-power and can be classified as a single photon, it nevertheless could be detected at all points on the sphere, which expands at 300,000 KPS. The photons pre-exist everywhere.
9
May 2011 – Heretical physics.
I
have been reading science magazines and popular books for 52 years. There seem
to be more questions unanswered than answered, which is a sign of a healthy
collective scientific psyche. But some Big questions have lingered for so long
that they threaten to outlive me – which is untenable. So I have set out the
Big answers – while attempting to respect all the information I have been
exposed to – by filling in the gaps that have nagged away at my sense of logic
and perspective for many decades. It is
not science as you (or I) know it – but the ideas may jog or jolt some
enquiries into new directions. It is
also posted on You Tube – search for “Eternal Life, The Universe and Everything”. One of the largest scientific gaps or
omissions is the lack of understanding of or even acknowledgment of the Life
Force as a primary organising force that we see all around us and that should
rank with the basic forces of physics.
Summaries of some of the
gaps - from 58 years of reading:
http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/Life-Universe-Everything-8Mar2011.pdf
http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/Seed-within-a-seed-APR-2011.pdf
4
February 2011 – From physics to metaphysics and metaphors.
Many scientists purport to be focused and
objective with no interest in “non-scientific” distractions, such as The
Meaning of Life, God, Life-Force, Soul and Spirit. I suspect that some of these
scientists are not being entirely objective about their inner motivations. I
suspect that many are in fact deeply curious about the big questions that
religions attempt to answer: Why we are born; Where do we come from; Why do we
die; Where (the hell) are we going?
Here is my current, plastic, debateable view
on how we, and our souls, might exist in and relate to the universe.
I read in Electric Universe – How Electricity
Switched on the Modern World, by David Bodanis ISBN 0-316-72972-8 Page 74:
“…Lift your finger and this slightly stronger
field spreads outwards, like the light from the Statue of
This basic information is fundamental, first
year stuff to all physicists – and it is how a low powered, comprehensible
telephone conversation travels thousands of miles along undersea cables –
electricity > magnetic field > electricity > magnetic field and so on.
These energies are perpetual, unending, infinite, immortal and as eternal as
the universe itself. We, we humans, generate such fields from every movement we
make and with every thought in our electrically powered brains. Perhaps a
similar set of forces and fields generated by electrons in motion also operate
and oscillate between all other subatomic particles and their fields.
Putting these facts together with my stubborn
insistence on reviving a structured universal energy field, such as the Aether
and with Inertia and in a Holographic (see my description of a holographic
universe below) energetic universe, I propose that every action and thought we
generate, from birth to death, and perhaps from pre-birth to after-death, is
broadcast out as electric -> magnetic -> electric fields etc, as clearly
and coherently as telephone signals, to blend into, subtly change and add to
the sum total of information in the universe. The subtle changes do, in
scientific fact, alter the energy patterns of the universe, which in turn
affects all phenomena. As fields have no parts, such changes to the energy
field might be instantaneously known or recognised by the whole field – and
feed back to the whole universe, including to us, ourselves, the conscious,
intelligent generators of these particular subtle field forces.
Thus, the universe evolves with every action
and thought (which are actions) made by all existent phenomena in the universe.
And, thus, we are born into a world pre-stressed, pre-formed, pre-pared and
pre-packaged and pre-ordained by all that has occurred since the beginning of
time. And thus our arrival has an impact on the world. And thus our subtle
data, information and electrical signals, our essence, our soul – does live on,
in a coherent form – forever.
And if such signals can be generated by humans
– maybe the obverse is true – that we humans take our physical form, we are
informed, from such persistent signals, such energies, modified by our
immediate environment – such as parental DNA, geography, diet, events, weather
etc.
Heaven Forfend! We might even receive information from an
earlier life history – not necessarily in our own genetic family line.
QED
RYDBERG’S CONSTANT – IDIOT’S GUIDE
22
Jan 2011 – Spinning on their axis?
New
Scientist 22 January 2011 page 16 briefly reports that the Planck spacecraft
and an “instrument” in the Canary Isles have detected microwaves from
interstellar dust clouds which are interpreted as coming from charged dust
grains, small enough to be set spinning on their axis by collisions with
photons, turning at “tens of billions of times per second”. (arxiv.org/abs/1101.2031).
No
researchers’ names or organisations are given by NS and there are no
explanations as to how this startling conclusion is reached. Startling because,
depending on how many tens of billions of turns the grains are making &
what circumference they have, the surfaces of the spinning grains might be
moving at more than light-speed, which is a mere 300,000 km per second or 1/3rd
of one billion km per second. And startling because such whirling dervishes
caused by photon collisions are similar to the basis of EIG (this website’s
theory) where energy is spun into matter through photon collisions. Also
startling because such speed raises the question of how the grains remain
intact and do not fly apart. Do they rely on dark-matter for their integrity?
Or do they rely, as EIG avers, on the vacuums caused by Hubble expansion? We need to know more, so:-
(24th Jan 2011 – Addendum –
Sadly, the arithmetic doesn’t indicate a spin anywhere near the speed of light,
which EIG is looking for. If the Grains have, say, a 10-6 metres circumference
(compare to an atom at 10-10 metres) then a Grain would have to spin
a million-billion times per second to be equivalent to light speed. The analysts’ reports below only speak of
tens of billions of turns per second – 100,000 times less than light-speed. The
remaining relevance to EIG is that it seems that photons can impact Grains and
set them spinning rapidly. Can photons impact each other and create spinning
vortexes?)
Cornell Library -
seems to be the primary source:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2031
Planck Early Results:
New Light on Anomalous Microwave Emission from Spinning Dust Grains
Authors: Planck
Collaboration: P. A. R. Ade,
N.
Aghanim, M. Arnaud,
M.
Ashdown, J. Aumont,
C.
Baccigalupi, A. Balbi,
A. J.
Banday, R. B.
Barreiro, J. G.
Bartlett, E.
Battaner, K. Benabed,
A. Benoît,
J.-P.
Bernard, M.
Bersanelli, R. Bhatia,
J. J. Bock,
A.
Bonaldi, J.
R. Bond, J. Borrill,
F. R.
Bouchet, F.
Boulanger, M. Bucher,
C.
Burigana, P. Cabella,
B.
Cappellini, J.-F.
Cardoso, S.
Casassus, A.
Catalano, L. Cayón,
A.
Challinor, A.
Chamballu, R.-R. Chary,
X. Chen,
L.-Y
Chiang, C. Chiang,
P.
R. Christensen, D. L.
Clements, S. Colombi,
F.
Couchot, A. Coulais,
B. P.
Crill, F. Cuttaia,
L. Danese,
R. D.
Davies, R.
J. Davis, P. de
Bernardis, G. de
Gasperis, A. de Rosa,
G. de
Zotti, J.
Delabrouille, J.-M.
Delouis, C.
Dickinson, S.
Donzelli, O. Doré, U. Dörl, M. Douspis,
X. Dupac,
G.
Efstathiou,
T. A.
En\sslin, H. K.
Eriksen, F. Finelli,
O. Forni,
M.
Frailis, E.
Franceschi, S.
Galeotta, K. Ganga,
R.
T. Génova-Santos, M. Giard,
G. Giardino,
Y.
Giraud-Héraud, J.
González-Nuevo, K. M. Górski,
S.
Gratton, A.
Gregorio, A.
Gruppuso, F. K. Hansen,
D.
Harrison, G. Helou,
S.
Henrot-Versillé, D. Herranz,
S.
R. Hildebrandt, E. Hivon,
M. Hobson,
W. A.
Holmes, W. Hovest,
R. J.
Hoyland, K. M.
Huffenberger, T. R. Jaffe,
A. H.
Jaffe, W.
C. Jones, M. Juvela,
E.
Keihänen, R.
Keskitalo, T. S. Kisner,
R.
Kneissl, L.
Knox, H. Kurki-Suonio,
G.
Lagache, A.
Lähteenmäki, J.-M.
Lamarre, A. Lasenby,
R. J.
Laureijs, C. R.
Lawrence, S. Leach,
R.
Leonardi, P. B. Lilje,
M.
Linden-V\ornle, M. López-Caniego,
P. M.
Lubin, J. F.
Macías-Pérez, C. J.
MacTavish, B. Maffei,
D. Maino,
N.
Mandolesi, R. Mann, M. Maris,
D. J.
Marshall, E.
Martínez-González, S. Masi, S.
Matarrese, F. Matthai,
P.
Mazzotta, P. McGehee,
P. R.
Meinhold, A.
Melchiorri, L. Mendes,
A.
Mennella, S. Mitra,
M.-A.
Miville-Deschênes, A. Moneti,
L.
Montier, G.
Morgante, D.
Mortlock, D. Munshi,
A. Murphy,
P. Naselsky,
P. Natoli,
C.
B. Netterfield, H.
U. N\orgaard-Nielsen, F.
Noviello, D. Novikov,
I.
Novikov, I. J.
O'Dwyer, S. Osborne,
F. Pajot,
R.
Paladini, B.
Partridge, F. Pasian,
G.
Patanchon, T. J.
Pearson, M.
Peel, O.
Perdereau, L. Perotto,
F.
Perrotta, F.
Piacentini, M. Piat, S.
Plaszczynski, P.
Platania, E.
Pointecouteau, G. Polenta,
N.
Ponthieu, T.
Poutanen, G. Prézeau,
P.
Procopio, S. Prunet,
J.-L.
Puget, W.
T. Reach, R. Rebolo,
W. Reich,
M.
Reinecke, C. Renault,
S.
Ricciardi, T. Riller,
I.
Ristorcelli, G. Rocha,
C. Rosset,
M.
Rowan-Robinson, J.
A. Rubi\no-Martín, B.
Rusholme, M. Sandri,
D. Santos,
G. Savini,
D. Scott,
M. D.
Seiffert, P.
Shellard, G. F. Smoot,
J.-L.
Starck, F. Stivoli,
V.
Stolyarov, R. Stompor,
R.
Sudiwala, J.-F. Sygnet,
J. A.
Tauber, L. Terenzi,
L.
Toffolatti, M. Tomasi,
J.-P.
Torre, M. Tristram,
J.
Tuovinen, G. Umana,
L.
Valenziano, J. Varis,
L.
Verstraete, P. Vielva,
F. Villa,
N.
Vittorio, L. A. Wade,
B. D.
Wandelt, R. Watson,
A.
Wilkinson, N. Ysard,
D. Yvon,
A.
Zacchei, A. Zonca
et al. (156 additional authors not shown)
(Submitted on 11 Jan 2011)
Abstract: Anomalous microwave emission (AME) has been observed by numerous
experiments in the frequency range ~10-60 GHz. Using Planck maps and multi-frequency
ancillary data, we have constructed spectra for two known AME regions: the
Perseus and Rho Ophiuchus molecular clouds. The spectra are well fitted by a
combination of free-free radiation, cosmic microwave background, thermal dust,
and electric dipole radiation from small spinning dust grains. The spinning
dust spectra are the most precisely measured to date, and show the high
frequency side clearly for the first time. The spectra have a peak in the range
20-40 GHz and are detected at high significances of 17.1sigma and 10.4sigma,
respectively. In Perseus, spinning dust in the dense molecular gas can account
for most of the AME; the low density neutral gas appears to play a minor role.
In Rho Ophiuchus, the ~30 GHz peak is dominated by dense molecular gas, but
there is an indication of an extended tail at frequencies 50-100 GHz, which can
be accounted for by irradiated low density atomic gas. The dust parameters are
consistent with those derived from other measurements. We have also searched the
Planck map at 28.5 GHz for candidate AME regions, by subtracting a simple model
of the synchrotron, free-free, and thermal dust. We present spectra for two of
the candidates: bright HII regions that show evidence for AME, and are well
fitted by spinning dust models.
***************** and the above report is explained as:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26261/
Technology Review - kfc
01/13/2011 - from MIT – tells us:
Planck Space
Observatory Begins To Reveal Its Secrets
The first data from one of the most important space
observatories is set to change the way we understand at the Universe
It's a big week for astronomers, who
have an exciting new dataset to play with courtesy of the Planck Space
Observatory, which is currently surveying the skies while orbiting the L2
Lagrangian Point some 1.5 million kilometres from Earth.
Planck's most important goal is to
measure the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang, in
unprecedented detail. In fact, it's unlikely that any future spacecraft will do
better. That's because the quality of the final data depends on how well
astronomers can subtract nearer objects from the background rather than on the
inherent resolution of Planck's instruments themselves. Whatever picture
emerges is likely to be as good as it gets.
But the Planck mission has other goals
too. Astronomers want to use it to build up a map of galaxy clusters on huge
scales, to spot instances of gravitational lensing of the CMB and to look at
the Milky Way, the planets and the Sun.
Planck has been collecting data
continuously since 13 August 2009 and has almost completed three surveys of the
entire sky.
This week, the Planck Collaboration of
over 200 scientists from around the world release a first set of data early.
They're doing this so astronomers can train other instruments on any objects of
interest.
In particular, they want to give the
Herschel infrared space observatory a chance to peak at any goodies Planck
uncovers. Herschel was launched with Planck and is also orbiting L2 cooled by
liquid helium which is gradually boiling away. Consequently, Herschel has a
limited lifespan of only 3 years, which it is already more than half-way
through.
The Planck Collaboration has released
its data in 23 papers placed on the arXiv this week. It's clear the data is
beginning to throw new light on mysteries such as the strange emissions from
dust in the Magellanic Clouds and the properties of the interstellar medium in our
galaxy.
But it's also clear that we're going to
hear a lot more about Planck in the coming years. I've placed links to all the
new papers below, in case you want to get a head start.
18 Jan 2011 –
Immortality & the Power of Inertia
We, and all phenomena, transmit our presence, identity
and actions from birth to death. The transmission signals broadcast themselves
across the universe "until the end of time" as do signals from
quasars, pulsars, etc that reach us from the horizon of the early universe.
Thus we contribute to the inertia of space-time, to
the patterns, energy and structure of the universe. And thus our entire lives,
every trivial and important thought and act is integrated to build the universe
as it manifests today and continues into the far future. The signals we
transmit do not die or diminish, just as signals from the "edge" of
the universe, from 13.5 billion years ago, are still detectable and coherent,
so do our signals persist. From our first stirrings in the womb, to our last
breath, all is transmitted out into the cosmos to form part of the patterns of
electro-magnetic energy or light that is the basic stuff of the universe. Just
as the faintest traces of messages from our spaceships, after decades of
flight, remain coherent even though sent from the edge of the solar system with
a final whisper of electric power, so do our, and all, phenomenal signals,
retain their identity.
This is equally so for each and every atom, electron,
photon and quark as they evolve from pure energy, into matter, into action, and
ultimately decay back to pure energy. The holographic nature of the universe
(see below) where the whole can be “seen” in spheres at every scale – just as
we see, with our eyes and telescopes, the whole image concentrated on the minuscule
retina of our eyes; implies that the whole electro-magnetic field and its
detailed history is detectable, identifiable and analysable on many scales –
scales dictated by the observing instruments. The patterns of the histories of
the universe never dissipate and die – they are as immortal as the universe
itself.
26 October 2010 – White Holes
& Sinks
A theoretical white hole is
the opposite of a black hole (New Scientist 23 October 2010 – page 13) where
everything comes out and nothing can get in.
The simple analogy given is water from a tap pouring down onto a flat
sink. As the water hits the surface it spills outwards in a bow wave, “creating
a ring-like ridge” before the ridge collapses and the outward movement
continues. The nearest to a white hole I
can imagine is the singularity at the start and centre of The Big Bang – where
infinite energy exploded and poured out into the no-thing that became space and
time. I used a similar analogy when conceiving EIG to theorise on how the
original Big Bang matter-less energy, even though meeting no resistance in the
no-thing, might through attenuation arch back on itself to create ripples in
the energy and ultimately to create closed, arched-back globes of matter – the
first particles. Was or is the Big-Bang
a white-hole?
24 October 2010 – Alpha, Aether
and Inertia.
Michael Brooks, whose book
13 Things That Don’t Make Sense, I enjoyed reading, writes in New Scientist 23
October 2010 (page 33) about the work of Australian professor, John Webb, which
threatens the consensus view held since 1916 of the universal sub-atomic
particle, fine-structure-constant Alpha, one (Wikipedia) definition being the
1/137 ratio between The Elementary Charge and the Planck Charge; another being
the ratio, or coupling constant between electrons and photons – and there are 3
or 4 more relationships which are “determined by” Alpha. As Alpha is calculated and measured
empirically, I think “determined by” is a misnomer. John Webb has found through observation of
light passing through clouds of magnesium and iron, from Quasars, billions of
light years away (and thus observed back in time) that Alpha varies very
slightly, one part in a million, being smaller looking North from Earth and
larger looking South – at light from Quasars.
One Constant varying will
vary all Constants. This in turn seems to threaten the unified theory and
raises a question of faith for scientists.
…Do you believe in varying Constants?
My view is, YES, Constants
do vary. The speed of light varies in various mediums and light can now even be
stopped and re-started. Where would we
find the perfect vacuum in which light travels unvaryingly at 300 kps? - which
in a leap of illogic brings me back to the Aether and Inertia. In the texts below are a few arguments for
the Aether and a Holographic universe, which seem more realistic with each new
report. And I think the definition of Inertia, the force that holds everything
in its place, should be strengthened to include “…the existing relationships on
every scale of all things and energies in the universe, which change only when
sufficient force is applied…” One of the
fundamental forces left out is the Life-Force, the implicit capability for
energy and matter to form complex, living and sentient entities; which may
prove to be the most fundamental,
yet flexible, of the basic physical forces.
Multiverses and
String-theory may be concoctions and confections of mathematics which in their
brilliant machinations detect but do not define or explain the implicit
dimensions and environments apparent, for example, in a historical family chain
– where a woman contains all the patterns and energies necessary to produce the
next, say 200, generations (with a little input from males along the line). The implicit universes in that woman’s
present existence – and of her ancestors – provide enough new dimensions and
universes to gratify the most persistent String-Theorist. It requires us to
embrace the reality of the Life-Force as a fundamental force, as a causal force,
as a primary organising force; not merely as a complex of phenomena resulting
from the four traditional fundamental forces. …And the point is?
The Life Force is known to
be evolvable, variable, adaptable, probably universal, yet constant. If the
universe around us is so astonishingly varied – why might we think that
(mathematical) Universal Constants cannot also vary? For the iron rule of Inertia to adjust all
the component, interrelated parts, Constants and energies of the universe to
admit a new, or exploding, or evolving, or shrinking or expanding phenomenon,
requires the whole universe to shift, to evolve and change. It seems that the Constants can and do
change, revisited by Inertia and communicated by the Aether.
EIG still holds.
10 Sept 2010 - How Many Photons
make you? What is your sphere of influence? Click the link…
http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/Creatures-of-Light-SEPT-2010-V1.xls
12 April 2010 – Quarks – Rest Mass
– Protons – Neutrons – EIG still works, OK !
As I have just completed 10
weeks learning about particle physics and The Big Bang, and before I take up
the post offered to me, as CEO of CERN, I am in an authoritative position to further
speculate on the moment that and the process whereby straw is spun into gold –
or energy becomes matter …and how C2 is possible, in contradiction
to the law that nothing can travel faster than light-speed. One of the factors that leapt out my student’s
notes was that the rest-mass of the 3 Quarks, 2 Up Quarks and 1 Down Quark,
that reside inside a proton are a small part, less than 15%, of the rest-mass
of the proton. This mirrors the equally baffling mystery of the missing mass,
Dark Matter, in the star-studded universe.
Protons are very reliable
bits of atoms which last for almost all time – as near to an infinite (half)-life
as we humans can imagine. If the Quarks
are, or themselves consist of, my rapidly spinning fractals – which EIG claims
as the fundamental building blocks of matter (see below) - then I can imagine
that the 85% of missing mass of the proton is the energy created by their
spinning at C squared – which is 90 billion kilometers per second – and the
consequent attraction between the fractals as the spins continuously wind-in
and lock-up energy (see the three vacuums below) – and as the Casimir Effect
further binds them together. The dynamic
between (1) the intertial forces that would tear apart the spinning fractals
and (2) the depleted energy field surrounding them, which by its nature must
reach out infinitely; is the very essence of matter. Even after 10 weeks of particle-physics, EIG
could still be a viable idea; or am I a blindly stubborn student.
BROOKHAVEN - ECHO OF EIG’s
VORTICES
22 February 2010 – Quark-Gluon
plasma forms vortices.
This New Scientist article
and the useful visual video (complete with commercial sponsor) has several
similarities with the basic physical theory expressed in EIG (as to how energy is converted to matter and
how C2 is possible, in contradiction to the law that nothing can
travel faster than light-speed). It
is worth duplicating in full. I will
consider the implications when time allows.
BROOKHAVEN VIDEO - Quark Gluon Vortices FEB 2010
Atom smasher shows vacuum of space in a twist
17:27 15 February 2010 by Rachel Courtland
Magazine issue 2748.
Ephemeral vortices that form in the vacuum of space may have been spotted for the first time. They could help to explain how matter gets much of its mass.
Most of the mass of ordinary matter comes from nucleons – protons and neutrons. Each nucleon, in turn, is made of three quarks. But the quarks themselves account for only about 1 per cent of the mass of a nucleon. The remainder of the mass comes from the force that holds the quarks together. This force is mediated by particles called gluons.
A theory called quantum chromodynamics is used to calculate how quarks and gluons combine to give mass to nucleons, but exactly how this phenomenon works is not fully understood.
One possibility is that the fields created by gluons can twist, forming vortex-like structures in the all-pervasive vacuum of space, and when quarks loop through these vortices, they gain energy, making them heavier.
STAR find
Now the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) in
To find the vortices, a team used a detector called STAR to analyse the particles created when the collider smashes gold or copper ions head-on at high energies. This process creates a fireball that is about 4 trillion kelvin at its core, a temperature high enough to form what's known as a quark-gluon plasma.
So what has this got to do with vortices created by gluons in the vacuum of space? If two ions collide off-centre, the ensuing fireball starts rotating, creating a powerful magnetic field. If gluon-created vortices exist, this magnetic field should cause quarks in the plasma to separate in accordance with their electric charge, says Dmitri Kharzeev, a theorist at BNL who predicted the effect.
That is exactly what the STAR collaboration saw: more
positively charged quarks moving in one direction and more negatively charged
quarks moving in another, says Nu Xu, spokesman for STAR. The findings
were presented on Monday at a meeting of the American Physical Society in
Direct manifestation
"It's a direct experimental manifestation of a property of quantum chromodynamics that has never been seen in the laboratory before," says Krishna Rajagopal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It confirms our understanding that gluon fields can have twists."
The evidence of the vortices in the vacuum of space is best seen in a quark-gluon plasma, which requires high energy collisions. The effect can be confirmed by studying the extent of quark separation at lower energies, so later this year the RHIC team plans to begin smashing ions together at lower and lower energies (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.251601).
But it's not yet clear whether gluon-created vortices – also called instantons – appear frequently enough to account for most of the mass of nucleons.
The key lies in measuring with greater precision the separation of charged quarks in the fireball seen at the RHIC. The more vortices created by gluons, the more the charged quarks should separate. This measurement could help pin down exactly how prevalent these instantons are in the present-day universe, says Kharzeev.
NOT NEARLY THERE – QUESTIONS TO
EXPLORE?
25 January 2010 – Bouncing photons
and constant in-falling.
Last week at my first
evening class on particle physics I asked what space is occupied by the “pure
energy” which results when two particles collide and annihilate each other; and
I asked what the pure energy is.
Pure energy is photons or
electromagnetic radiation or light.
Where the energy is in space-time was more problematical and did not
elicit a simple answer. At first the lecturer said that the liberated energy
did not exist in space and time, before saying it was more complicated than
that – and moving on.
We also learned about
Recently (Oct-Dec 09) I
read in New Scientist or Scientific American that some physicists now ascribe a
mass to the mass-less photon.
Thinking about these matters
leads me to an extension of EIG:
1) The gravitational force
is an ever present ubiquitous force of matter tugging on matter, which EIG has
so far explained as due to Hubble Expansion.
2) Very recent articles speculate
that weightless photons do in fact have rest-mass of the photon divided by the
speed of light C2 (some say it is 1.8 x 10-42 grams). See photon-mass below at Three illuminated thoughts - 2 November 08.
But
photons are never at rest. I want to explore
the idea that E=MC2 actually means what it says – and that a
particle or an entire atom is indeed made of light compressed onto centres (by
the original EIG mechanics below). The
space/sphere which the light occupied before compression (or precipitation like
a crystal forming) is calculable by a variant of E=MC2, requiring a
certain number of photons or light waves to make up the mass of the
particle. Thus the particle of matter is
at the centre of a system where photons in-fall and congregate and come to an
uneasy resting place (NB quantum fluctuations). But to be a gravitational
effect the in-falling must be continuous. This could be caused by Hubble
Expansion continually expanding the space occupied by the particle AND by the
photons compacting down over the lifetime of the particle due to the continual
bombardment by incoming photons. Ultimately the compacting mass, like cosmic
black holes, explodes, liberating the photons.
THE BIG BOUNCE – just as
Rutherford demonstrated that helium nuclei can bounce off gold nuclei, then
in-falling photons might bounce off nuclei and as they bounce, fluctuate from
waves to particles like electrons to magnetic fields (the essential conversion
of energy to matter), bouncing out to the margins of the (relatively empty,
vacuum) space previously occupied by photons, now congregated at the centre of
the particle. This bounce and in-falling process is the characteristic wave-length
of the atom (or of the particle) and it creates the electron orbit/s diameter/s
of the atom /particle. An implication is
that the bouncing process might apply to all the photons (each in turn, leaving
an attractive mass at the centre) which expand in waves out to the margins of
the space from whence they came – to collapse back again into a singularity
(photon) within the mass. The space
affected by a single particle is limitless as an emptying sphere would draw in
energy from neighbouring regions to infinity – but definition and boundaries
would be defined by neighbouring matter.
However, the signal would theoretically reach to the edge of the
universe.
THE BIG SPACE – DARK ENERGY
– DARK MATTER – C squared, is 90 billion kilometres per second and expressed in
metres is 90 trillion metres per second. Even in fractions of a second, e.g. the
half-life of a particle, the radius from the centre of mass of the sphere of
electromagnetic energy which in-fall to create the particle – is large. As speculated below, this emptying, or
partial depletion, of a space of its light energy, reduces the mass of that
space – which counter intuitively could let-go-of and allow the faster
expansion of space-time – the Dark-Energy of astrophysicists. The in-falling process, initiated by Hubble
Expansion, is the missing Dark Matter which some astrophysicists seek to hold
galaxies together.
3) NB – The photon as a
wave/particle is almost certainly the basic transition phase between pure
energy and matter. It is true that all
matter is made of light and the EIG concept could indeed be a mechanism for spinning
the straw (energy fields) in to gold (particles of matter).
Will Microsoft Office EXCEL
cope with 10-42? I doubt it, but it’s worth a try.
Let’s see if we can
calculate how many photons make the mass of a quark, a person etc – and the
size of the energy sphere which needs to be compressed. It will surely show that I have a
commandingly large presence in the universe.
1 DEC 09 – The
Electric Universe - A dilemma:
25 Jan 2010 NB – New Scientist
23rd Jan 2010 reports confirmation of an electric-magnetic field on the
outskirts of our solar-system – which is a basic claim of the Electric
Universe. Magnetic mirror A mysterious "ribbon" of
particles at the edge of the solar system has been explained. The ribbon,
spotted by NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer spacecraft last year, is the
reflection of the solar wind in a giant magnetic field in the interstellar
space next to the solar system (The Astrophysical Journal Letters, DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/708/2/L126).
The Electric Universe, by the
self-professed scientific heretics Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot, makes
very large claims for electricity as the primary universal force, “…a thousand,
trillion, trillion, trillion times more powerful than gravity” (page 8). 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
( 1030 )
One of the major components
that the established Big Bang gravitational theories lack (in my view), is the
Aether – a universally connected field. I surmise that the Aether does exist as
holographic spheres / zones on every scale, each one unique due to the differing
angles of interception, from each of which the whole universe can be seen –
courtesy of light / electromagnetic waves and particles – and the spheres have
substance, due to the pressure of the waves and particles exert on each another
as they cross or collide. (See more on Holographic Universe below). This
holographic matrix may underpin Inertia.
As I read The Electric
Universe my Aether starts to look like their all pervasive plasma. Traditional physics demands absolute vacuums
of space, with one or two stray hydrogen atoms etc per cubic metre, but
incapable of transmitting anything other than gravity – a force which nobody
understands. Thornhill & Talbot
claim that electric currents fill the universe and link all celestial
bodies. I thought about the Earth, with
its known magnetic-field, and thought about it hurtling round the Sun, through
the heliosphere and other planetary forces and fields and realised that a
moving magnetic field should create an electric current – and vice-versa.
So I will read on and
reconsider 40 years of received Big Bang wisdom.
I am probably a good subject
to be on the horns of the Big Bang or Electric Universe dilemma – two theories
which may of course not be mutually exclusive.
I have never seen an atom smasher, a cloud chamber, a cyclotron – and
must trust the reports and interpretations published in popular science
magazines and books. On the other hand,
I have never seen a plasma chamber, alive with coloured electricity, doing
amazing things – and must trust the reports and interpretations I read about
those events.
My EIG paradigm, on which this
webpage rests, may have to change.
More - later.
The Electric Universe by Wallace
Thornhill & David Talbot - 3 Nov 09.
I am reading The Electric Universe (www.thunderbolts.info) which popped-up as I was searching for “Physics,
I am reading these theories and looking at the
accompanying videos with great interest not least because my thinking (see
Heavyweight empty space 28 Sept 09 etc - below) has led me to a ‘dynamic
interpenetrating electromagnetic holographic universal matrix at every scale
(DIEHUMES)’ – which could be the long lost pre-Einstein Aether – a universal
field which in my view ought to exist to account for Inertia.
TEU theory might solve or dispose of several mysteries
including Hubble Expansion & the Size of the Universe, Dark Matter, Dark
Energy, Anachronistic Stars and Galaxies, Life Cycles of Stars, Scalding Hot
Solar Corona on our Cool Sun, Dirty-Snowball Asteroids, Lost Spacecraft,
String-Mathematics, Math-a-mystic Multiverses, Aurora Borealis and
Self-Cleaning Solar Panels on Mars Landers.
However, good old gravitational calculations and quantum
& celestial mechanics have accurately put men on the moon and satellites in
orbit round planets – without being electrocuted, yet, - so they must be a bit
right.
I am drawn to read more of TEU by my natural inclinations
towards the familiar – we all know what a lightning bolt looks like but we do
not know what gravity is – and towards conspiracy theories, where noble
geniuses are silenced by sinister great powers – which every child has suffered
sometime – and by TEU certainty in the face of wishy-washy incomplete hesitant
speculations – we deserve to know it all – Now!. And I like the central idea that the whole
universe is interactive and self-regenerating – maybe not doomed to Heat Death
after all. And, TEU aside, I like the
role of electricity in the Life-Force, where I imagine it perhaps builds the
templates that tissue cells follow as they develop into organisms. TEU does of course highlight other unsolvable
mysteries, including how and why does magnetism create electric currents and
how and why do electric currents create magnetic fields.
Deeper reading – deeper thinking and perhaps deep editing
of EIG - to come.
*****************
NB – for next time. Light does not travel – it propagates; the implication being that like electricity it agitates something that is already there waiting to be agitated. Could this be so for all particles??? Back to the Aether and Inertia.
Heavyweight empty space.
28 Sept 09.
The virtual spheres of empty space which accommodate the holographic universe (see below) do have weight or mass. Erect a globe shaped screen in any sphere and it will reflect or capture a picture of the surrounding universe. The picture is formed from electromagnetic radiation or light, which does create pressure (mass). Think of the principles of “solar sails” capturing sunlight. The radiation propagates or in-falls from every direction; if the imaginary screen is removed, the radiation from one direction will criss-cross with and impact on the radiation from another – such collisions might create fundamental motes of matter (maybe quarks); Tenuous, yes, but non-existent, no. To recapitulate the characteristics of the spheres:
1) They are expanding with Hubble expansion. This attenuates the field and attracts (allows in-falling) like a vacuum.
2) The smaller the sphere, the more wavelengths are excluded and thus the less dense the internal energy field. The lower density inside a small sphere is surrounded by higher density – which will form “bubbles” in the field. This is similar to the Casimir effect – which has a more energetic role to play later as matter forms.
3) The contents of the spheres have some mass.
4) The spheres nest inside each another like Russian Dolls. And the spheres interpenetrate each other.
We are back to the Aether - I am afraid – which enables Inertia.
Malevolent and Benevolent Viruses. Human DNA exchanges. 2
September 09 + later notes. (A brief aside from Gravity).
17 Sept 09
To: Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology,
Email: Wickramasinghe@cardiff.ac.uk
Dear Professor Wickramasinghe,
Harmful Viruses - Helpful Viruses
I have been a fan of your published work for several decades; so
I apologise for burdening your in-tray with the following speculation
- I hope it interests you enough to consider it:
Most people accept that a person infected with a flu' virus, a
cunning packet of DNA, may walk into a crowded room and within an hour, all
will be exposed to the virus and many will become ill. Science can test
for the presence of such harmful viruses or mark their past visits.
Given the virus/DNA soup around us; is it not just as
logical that helpful viruses spread just as rapidly as harmful ones? Are we
simply too masochistic, paranoid and depressive to allow that helpful
viruses, or other packets of DNA, can affect us positively? I think this
is scientifically testable.
Below are my rambling notes on the topic.
I am building a Dawkins proof bunker.
Best wishes
Noel Hodson
17 Sept 09 – Another note:
We know where to look for malevolent viruses, such as the search for the
1918 Spanish Flu’ virus by digging through frozen corpses in graves and
bone-yards in
13 Sept 09 – And another note:
This speculation could be tested by looking for benevolent viruses. Also – malevolent viruses such as flu’ do
spread through populations at amazing speed – and so might benevolent
viruses. Can we rapidly cure large
numbers of people by releasing a benevolent virus?
Another note: this time to think about DNA in the context of the
Life Force, having watched a TV programme “The Cell”. A “seriously clever” heavily bearded, Harvard
scientist, intent on making the 2nd Genesis – a new lab created living
cell different from THE CELL which spawned all life on Earth, was filmed mixing,
with a simple swish of the merged solutions, DNA strands, which make glow-flies
glow, with animal cells. When the cells multiplied, the mixture glowed green
showing that the introduced strands had attached to the cell’s DNA and were
multiplying with the cells.
Another interview was with a
DNA – 4
September 2009. We accept the fact that complex, e.g. flu,
viruses are manufactured in our cells, escape when we sneeze and cough, and
insert themselves into the cells of other people. Let’s class them as malevolent strands of
DNA. It is testable by experiment and
equally probable that “benevolent” strands are passed from person to person.
When listening to the Dalai Lama at the crowded Sheldonian in
DNA – 5 September 2009. ….and we accept that
mumps, measles, scarlet fever etc, in fact all communicable diseases, are
passed from person to person or beast to beast as prions, viruses, bacteria etc
– which have been reproduced with their DNA in others’ cells. We do not know
what “junk DNA” which is 80% of the genome, does or why it exists (just as we don’t
know what 80% of the universe is made of). My speculation is that the entire
history and evolution of the life form is recorded in the Junk DNA, and may be
reactivated by extreme pressures. Does
the transmission of non-malevolent DNA enable the carrying of Dawkin’s Memes
from person to person? Is our DNA changing from moment to moment? And do we
pass it around the human race – thus all share in the new DNA patterns? If so, it makes more sense of our longevity,
well after our allotted reproductive cycles decline.
Are there two causes of gravity? First Hubble Expansion, Second Casimir
Exclusions? – 13 September 09.
On reading Black Stars, Not
Holes, by Carlos Barcello, Stefano Liberti, Sebastiona Sonego and Matt Visser,
SCIAM, October 2009; and revisiting my own thoughts below, here’s another crack
at a synthesis.
Holographic:
I envisage the universe as
a set of boxes or interpenetrating spheres, each in-formed by criss-crossing
electro-magnetic radiation from the entire universe, apart from wavelengths too
small to impact a smaller sphere – down to Planck’s minimum (n.b. Casimir
Effect). The original, matterless,
universe consisted of energy, and it expanded and continues to expand as per
Hubble.
GRAVITY
ONE - Attenuation: The expansion of what can
be imagined as a featureless energy field creates a universal attenuation of
the field of 6.819E-19% per second.
This is the underlying tug of gravity ascribed to Dark Matter.
Matter: As matter is formed (see below), massive
“volumes” of the energy field are crystallised onto points, subatomic
particles, thus depleting the energy field. The removal of these immense
volumes creates a letting-go of the energy field, which drives expansion in the
manner ascribed to Dark Energy.
GRAVITY TWO – Casimir: I asked below what could create the walls or
plates to bring the Casimir Effect into being.
The tamed, small waves between two large ships on a stormy sea are often
given as a Casimir analogy. The exclusion
space between the ships is only closed from 2 of six sides/planes. The answer to
forming the excluding plates may be simply – matter. Matter could shield areas inside matter
formation from wavelengths. Below is a SCIAM
report that Casimir does operate inside atoms. We thus have two ways in which
wavelengths are excluded. Firstly, long wavelengths by-pass smaller,
holographic spheres, which may cause the spheres to form as bubbles in the
whole (stronger / heavier) energy field.
This would give the holographic universe a real rather than merely theoretical
structure, which would give us the Aether.
Secondly, as matter forms, the matter acts like the
sides of the ships to exclude certain wavelengths and creates the Casimir
effect. While Casimir is the in-pressing
of more (heavier) wavelengths on the outside of the plates as compared to the
inside wavelengths, and is not strictly a vacuum, it nevertheless is a
persistent and relentless in-pressing force which must logically, in a field,
reach back infinitely – until lost in the complicated forces of surrounding
spheres and matter.
Thus, when calculating gravity, there would be two
vectors to apply; the first, Hubble, immensely subtle and barely detectable
(and probably not testable); the second, Casimir, stronger and more
measurable. These two forces, might
explain the anomalies discovered in the speeds of space-vehicle flights.
QED. (For now).
Is the Casimir-Vacuum gravity? – 20 August 09.
A self-reminder to think more about The Casimir Effect and the holographic universe (see paragraphs below). In the smallest Planck space of 10-33M, most wavelengths are excluded as they are too large to impinge. The criss-crossing effect (read below) will be limited to the smallest possible waves and thus the Planck space, say a sphere, will be relatively empty and its “sides” will be compressed together by the denser, larger spheres (accommodating more and longer waves) around it. …And so on up the wavelength scale. But what on Earth could the “sides” of the spheres be made of? Would the relative vacuum inside a Casimir-Planck sphere tug on surrounding energy and matter – or are these simply excluded without any forceful effects?
Crab Nebula explosion expands to the edges of the universe;
and the Life Force, ranked with Gravity, Nuclear and Electrical Forces – 7 Jul
09.
More thoughts on energy
fields crystallising matter at the rate of
E=MC2 , and thus about
inertia with, perhaps, particles continually, rhythmically expanding back to
energy and then contracting back to matter – perhaps expanding to the limits of
the universe; lead to thinking about reversing the process.
An exploding atom bomb
converts matter to energy, which manifests in heat, light, radiation and
sub-atomic particles. The explosion makes room for its expansion by pushing other
stuff aside. In this sense it demands to be accommodated in its new form –
expanding from matter to energy – and the universe has to adjust – despite the
reluctance and resistance of inertia.
Does this liberated energy add mass to the electro-magnetic energy field
and does such extra mass have the counter-intuitive effect of increasing mutual
attractions within the energy field and thus, momentarily, slowing the
expansion of the universe? How far from the centre of the event is it felt? Is
there a limit to the effect of the explosion?
In the case of a supernova
such as the Crab Nebula, we can see that the explosion is occupying an ever
increasing volume of space. The fact that we can see it, millions of
light-years away, demonstrates that some of the liberated energy has travelled
as far as our Solar System and - as the supernova occurred a long time ago – we
could figure out the distance limits of its visibility. Does the effect
eventually reach the boundary of the universe - if a boundary exists?
From thoughts about dispersal and contraction of energy and the inertia which provides stability, arise more thoughts about organisation, sentience and life – which is evident everywhere we look. Chaos Theory with its compelling Mandelbrot fractal pictures, had its popular day a couple of decades back and no heathen Richard Dawkins types rose up in anger – or even to now look back in anger – to scoff and scold. Basically, if enough energy is poured into a system, Chaos Theory predicts points of bifurcation where the system spontaneously re-organises itself into what humans recognise as meaningful patterns and “strange attractors” around which matter and energy swirl in artistic mathematical forms. In direct contrast to the allegedly immutable laws of thermodynamics, it seems that the stuff of the universe does not even itself out to become a bland soup or cold dead planets drifting in a dark universe – but it continually takes new forms and creates or produces new organised phenomena – including intelligent life such as humans and tadpoles and grass-seed. Such self-organisation, of energy processing systems, seems to occur at every level, from energy fields to sub-atomic particles, to matter. Is the basic stuff of the universe sentient? Is it not now an appropriate time, in the evolution of the recently born field of “the scientific method” that the Life Force was elevated to a fundamental force worthy of being ranked with and studied alongside the physical forces? Life is all around us and as yet there is no evidence that, or how, physics creates life – perhaps the reverse is true.
Melvyn Bragg & Co - vacuums or not? – 30 Apr 09
Melvyn Bragg on BBC Radio 4
at 9am this morning asked his panel of particle and astrophysicists if there is
such a thing as a vacuum, either in the vastness of space or within atoms. Several interesting metaphors and
clarifications emerged in the conversation.
1) The Aether has been
recently replaced by “the Higgs Field” which is deemed to wobble as
electromagnetic waves pass through. I
knew we would get the Aether back eventually, but why ascribe it to Higgs
instead of Hertz or Maxwell or Faraday or Thomson & Co?
2) The inverse square law
of gravity works at a lesser rate inside atoms, which is due to the Casimir
effect. Casimir (1950’s) figured out
that waves inside boundaries can only be as large as the boundaries allow, e.g.
small waves between two large ships on a stormy sea.
3) It was said that the Red
Shift of light travelling across large distances of space is due to the Hubble
Expansion of space stretching the light. This is a new thought for me; I have
always understood the red-shift to be because the source of light is moving
away from the observer – and a blue-shift when the source is moving towards us. I suppose it amounts to the same thing. But does it have implications for the speed of
light?
4) Dark Energy – the force
pushing galaxies etc apart – is happening and is a mystery. I have my ideas about this.
5) As electromagnetic
wavelengths get shorter the energy in them increases. I suppose this is another way of saying that
if a long-wave signal is sent with say 10 tonnes/second of energy, then
shortening the wavelength does not reduce the overall energy – thus each peak
& trough has greater energy from the point of view of a target of a
particular size (a human for example) which may not notice, be affected by, a
long wave.
The talk was around the
idea of a cubic meter of black empty space. Is it a vacuum or is there
something there? And ditto about the
relatively huge empty spaces inside an atom – the size of St Andrew’s golf
course with the nucleus the size of a golf-hole; what connects the “orbiting”
electrons and is the space empty? The
consensus was that the cubic meter of empty space is filled with
electromagnetic waves (they are getting there), virtual particles which pop in
and out of existence in defiance of the laws of conservation (borrow Friday and
Payback Monday and no-one notices) and a very few resident atoms (hydrogen
etc).
The radio discussion
inspires me to write a “what this site discusses” summary – for busy
executives.
“Ooops” Change to the expansion of the universe constant –
11 March 09
Various recent 2009
articles in New Scientist & SCIAM have quietly introduced the data that
while the Age of the Universe is indeed about 13.7 Billion years old, and that
at the speed of light it might therefore be assumed that the edge of the
Observable Universe is also 13.7 Billion Light Years distant – making that the
radius of the observable universe – in fact,
due to factors beyond our control, the radius of the observable (not
necessarily the greatest distance we can currently see to the edge of the universe, but somewhat further) is 47.5
billion light years, which is therefore the radius.
This buggers-up the
constant for the percentage per second that the universe expands, which I have
calculated and have been using since 2002.
You will find it below, cited as 2.304E-18% per second. The new number is 6.819E-19% per second, which is a far
smaller percentage and rate of expansion.
I apply this rate of expansion to all, any and every sphere of whatever
dimensions. What this change might mean
to all the ideas set out below – if anything – I will have to take time to
consider. The most immediate thought is
that this even smaller rate of expansion (which through attenuation/momentary
vacuum IS gravity) makes the process even more subtle and difficult to
detect.
“Spooky” action at a distance – 21 Feb. 09
Letter to the Editor
Scientific American
21 FEB 09
THE PULSE OF THE UNIVERSE.
The article by David Z Albert and Rivka Galchen, A Quantum
Threat to Special Relativity, SCIAM March 2009, discussing locality, leads me
to speculate on and to reflect that a telephone signal travelling via the
undersea cables from, say, England to America, is a series
of "travelling" electrons, creating magnetic fields, creating
electrons, creating magnetic fields, and so on. The magnetic fields exist
outside of the cable but are guided by it. This endless pulsing is highly
accurate in re-creating the data carrying electrons from the re-condensing
magnetic field, as demonstrated by the communications they carry. There must be
a powerful force of inertia maintaining such accurate pulsating between matter
and energy field states. If all particles of matter similarly fluctuate or
pulse, which accords with matter condensing energy as in E=MC2, and if magnetic fields
pulse outwards to fill the universe, it would provide a mechanism for particles
to be, by our time reckoning, in both states simultaneously; and would make
accurate measurement of particles impossible.
Such a pulse, governed by inertia, would not necessarily
always re-create the expanded energy field when it condenses back to matter,
precisely as it was before. This potential evolution from moment to moment
allows for the mathematicians’ findings of multi-verses, not existing
simultaneously but from micro-second to micro-second, exploring all possible
universes sequentially. If the expansion of particles into energy fields is a
momentary return to pre-matter existence, the state before the Big-Bang when
matter is deemed to have been created, then the expanded energy fields perhaps
exist in a timeless dimension and as such their communications are not
time limited, allowing action at a distance or non-locality. Fields are
inherently non-local as they have no parts.
The inertia which so accurately recreates the particles
from energy might come from the energy of the magnetic fields interpenetrating
across the universe, forming a matrix which is robust in that every field and
re-condensing particle has its place in the universe, as every other place is
occupied; every particle and field is nudged into its proper place by every
other particle & field. This matrix, which we might for example call the
Aether, would also allow for a holographic universe, in which every sphere of
all sizes, from the sphere of the whole universe (if it is bounded and not
infinite) down to an eyeball sized and down to minimum Planck sized
spheres, are criss-crossed by electromagnetic pulses from every physical object
in the universe and from every immaterial force field. Place a recording screen
or an eyeball anywhere in the universe and its screen will see the whole universe
at whatever size the screen allows. Each holographic sphere image, made of real
electro-magnetic forces, will differ and is unique due to the different angles
from the positions of “fixed” matter and due to the exclusion of long
wavelengths from smaller spheres. Is
this the source of inertia? The
philosophical implications and the responsibility for our personal actions in
such an instantly evolving, interconnected, interdependent universe are truly
terrible.
Noel Hodson (Mr)
16 Brookside ,
“All the world’s a hologram” – 17 Jan 09 & 19 Jan 09.
This headline, on an article by Marcus
Chown, New Scientist, 17 Jan 09, promised to echo or at least straighten-up my
thoughts on a holographic universe (below 28 March 08 & 18 Jan 08). But it
seems that Craig Hogan, Director of the centre for particle astrophysics at
Fermilab, of whom Chown writes, is using “holographic” differently to me. Hogan
speculates that interference or “jitter” detected by the gravitational wave
detector GEO600 at
What I do imagine is that in or from any
given sphere of space, every body in the visible universe can be “seen” –
imagine the sphere as a head with eyes looking in all directions, feeding the
images to one retina. And that if that sphere had some physical defining characteristics
such as gas or dust or a glass marble, the whole universe would be seen within
it. In that sense the sphere would be a
holographic image of the universe. I now go on to imagine that in the absence
of any screen, marble, gas or dust, what else might reflect or fix the
minuscule image of the great universe?
The unending stream of particles and waves, including tiny neutrinos,
criss-crossing the universe could be the ephemeral spherical screens on all
scales which capture images (or are informed by) of galaxies, supernovae,
stars, planets, and even smaller phenomena. In fact, there is no logical reason
to limit the sensitivity until the spheres are so small that wavelengths pass
them by and will not fit into the space.
And this imagining of an infinite number of images, at all scales, made
of light (just as the source bodies are made of light) leads me back to the pesky
Aether – which in turn supports the wavelengths. And the whole complex is
growing with Hubble expansion at my calculation of 2.304E-18% per second. (now 6.819E-19% per second)
Yes, I am so old fashioned, stubborn and
traditional that I will not yet ditch the Aether.
The matrix of the
holographic Aether will depend partly on the size of the nominal
viewing-spheres compared to the wavelengths of electromagnetic forces and
partly on the angles of intersection as the waves criss-cross. For example, if
there exists a wavelength as large as the known universe then only a
viewing-sphere as large as the whole universe can contain that wavelength. Take
an imagined quantum step down to a wavelength that is half the size of the
known universe, then two holographic viewing-spheres can be contained in the universe,
which contain this half-length and all smaller wavelengths; the two
viewing-spheres differ due to their different angles of intersection of all the
wavelengths of signals from all the universal bodies (bodies of every size from
galaxies to atomic particles). Another
halving of wavelengths excludes all longer wavelengths and allows four
viewing-spheres containing all smaller wavelengths; the four will be different
and unique due to the angles of intersection. This scaling will continue
downwards until a minuscule viewing-sphere size is reached that excludes even
the shortest wavelengths – is that the Planck Length? Within each of the larger
viewing-spheres are smaller viewing-spheres whose perimeters are governed or
defined by wavelengths. Thus, the
universe can be depicted as one all encompassing reality, of material objects,
made from compressed lights as it happens, which contains zones, bubbles or
viewing-spheres of invariably regular dimensions dictated by included and
excluded criss-crossing wavelengths. The sizes of these viewing-spheres are
quantum jumps in scale, though the quantum may vary with wavelengths. Each
viewing-sphere has unique characteristics. A major and fundamental question is,
do the criss-crossing signals of electromagnetic forces create a tangible
stable matrix – however ephemeral, insubstantial, shadowy, ghostly and fluid it
may be? If so, it could be the
Aether. This entire complex is rescued
from being eternally static by Hubble Expansion – and …according to EIG, the
expansion of the stuff of the universe attenuates the matrix, everywhere, at
all times and that attenuation or momentary vacuum is gravity. Another thought;
the viewing-sphere ethereal matrix, if it has any substantiality, will in its
turn, influence the “real” matter in the universe either by containment,
wavelength reflection and deflection, or both. Given the regularity of this
holographic matrix, it should be possible for real mathematicians to calculate
the numbers of viewing-spheres.
Three illuminated thoughts - 2
November 08.
1) Is everything quantum? Are ALL physical things at every level and
size, built in quantum steps – or phase changes; emergence out of chaos
etc. It would make sense if this were
so. Even at the massive scale of
lumbering animals – say human beings – evolution seems to proceed in leaps and
bounds, not smooth gradients. Are these
leaps and bounds of a standard size if observed over particular time scales?
2) The New Scientist 1 November 08 article
by Mark Buchanan, Shedding light, says that Mitchell Feigenbaum, Rockefeller
University, New York, has published mathematics arriving at the same
conclusions as Einstein but without invoking light. The article also says this new maths makes it
possible to allow that photons have mass – albeit a minute 10-49
grams per photon. If they do have mass,
and travel in waves – the (rigid framework) Aether once again rears its useful
head – and it is a step nearer claiming that all matter is made from light.
Spinning straw into gold or light into material looks more logical and adds
credence to the vital step between energy and matter postulated in this EIG
theory. If photons do have some mass –
does this explain dark matter?
NS 2002 - Now the researchers, along with Richard Woodard
at the
According to quantum theory, a vacuum is not really empty:
instead it's full of pairs of particles created from nothing. Normally these
particles collide and annihilate each other immediately after they form. But in
the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the Universe is thought to
have exploded outwards incredibly fast, a period called inflation. For pairs of
particles that can feel the pull of inflation, the rapid expansion of space
would have pulled them so far apart they wouldn't have been able to annihilate
each other, and would have filled space.
The Higgs
boson can't affect photons, but these charged particles can. It would have
taken more energy than normal to create a photon amid this sea of particles.
And the particles would have dragged on the photons. In effect, the photons had
a mass of about a hundred-billionth of a gram each. After inflation stopped,
the extra energy associated with this mass would have created magnetic fields
that evolved into the fields that exist today.
Wikipedia -
Massless particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
…Instead, physicists generally accept the
second-quantized theory of photons described below, quantum electrodynamics, in which photons are quantized
excitations of electromagnetic modes.
***********************************
In relativity, all energy moving along with a body adds up to the total
energy, which is exactly proportional to the relativistic mass. Even a single photon, graviton, or neutrino traveling in empty space has a
relativistic mass, which is its energy divided by c². But the rest mass
of a photon is slightly subtler to define in terms of physical measurements,
because a photon is always moving at the speed of light—it is never at rest.
If you run away from a photon in the direction it travels, having it chase
you, when the photon catches up to you the photon will be seen as having less
energy. The faster you were traveling when it catches you, the less energy it
will have. As you approach the speed of light, the photon looks redder and
redder, by Doppler shift (the Doppler shift is the relativistic formula),
and the energy of a very long-wavelength photon approaches zero. This is why a
photon is massless; this means that the rest mass of a photon is zero.
Two photons moving in different directions can't both be made to have
arbitrarily small total energy by changing frames, or by chasing them. The
reason is that in a two-photon system, the energy of one photon is decreased by
chasing it, but the energy of the other will increase. Two photons not moving
in the same direction have an inertial
frame
where the combined energy is smallest, but not zero. This is called the center
of mass
frame or the center of momentum frame; these terms are almost synonyms
(the center of mass frame is the special case of a center of momentum frame
where the center of mass is put at the origin). The most that chasing a pair of
photons can accomplish to decrease their energy is to put the observer in frame
where the photons have equal energy and are moving directly away from each
other. In this frame, the observer is now moving in the same direction and
speed as the center of mass of the two photons. The total momentum of the
photons is now zero, since their momentums are equal and opposite. In this
frame the two photons, as a system, have a mass equal to their total energy
divided by c2. This mass is called the invariant
mass
of the pair of photons together. It is the smallest mass and energy the system
may be seen to have, by any observer. It is only the invariant mass of a
two-photon system that can be used to make a single particle with the same rest
mass.
If the photons formed by the collision of a particle and an antiparticle,
the invariant mass is the same as the total energy of the particle and
antiparticle (their rest energy plus the kinetic energy), in the center of mass
frame, where they will automatically be moving in equal and opposite directions
(since they have equal momentum in this frame). If the photons are formed by
the disintegration of a single particle with a well-defined rest mass,
like the neutral pion,
the invariant mass of the photons is equal to rest mass of the pion. In this
case, the center of mass frame for the pion is just the frame where the pion is
at rest, and the center of mass doesn't change after it disintegrates into two
photons. After the two photons are formed, their center of mass is still moving
the same way the pion did, and their total energy in this frame adds up to the
mass energy of the pion. Thus, by calculating the invariant
mass
of pairs of photons in a particle detector, pairs can be identified that were
probably produced by pion disintegration.
3) Referring
to paragraph 2 immediately above, and to the thoughts below about the
holographic universe being in every place, on every scale: Is light already
there; everywhere? And so does it simply get activated when we measure its
“speed” – activated like twanging or vibrating a taut string (not string
theory) between the point of measurement and the source – and activated at the
rate of 300,000 KPS? If light
criss-crosses all zones at all times – and has weight – then it could serve as
the ubiquitous, now you need it, now you don’t, Aether. And thus be the carrier
of Inertia. This would not contradict
the essential point of this website, that Hubble expansion causes gravity – and
that light flowing into momentary-mini-vacuums collides with light to create
fundamental particles.
How many photons are there
in a cubic centimetre of “empty”, “dark” space; what
do they weigh and how do they retain their content of information about their
source and their journey – which we can analyse – and how do they allow another
electromagnetic beam to pass through the (already crowded as it contains an
image of the entire universe) cubic centimetre, without mutual annihilation? Maybe the beams thread their way past each
other by taking the paths of least resistance – e.g. circumnavigating a minimum
Planck sphere or a larger sphere. The beam that we suppose to be straight would
thus disappear and then reappear from our view, breaking up a continuous stream
of energy into quanta. Maybe there are
so many photons - infinite numbers - that billions of mutual annihilations do
not detract from the information the infinite number of survivors carry.
The LHC and a contradiction - 12
September 08.
CERN switched on the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) yesterday morning at around 9.30am UK time. Those who believed the LHC would
create Black-Holes which would suck the Earth and possibly the solar system
into their event-horizons, may have felt a slight tug towards
ONE OR BOTH OF THESE PROPOSITIONS IS/ARE
WRONG:
By coincidence, or perhaps by Intelligent
Design, a week earlier I travelled with a renowned physicist who analyses data
from probes on distant planets. How, I asked, could such very feeble
electro-magnetic signals with less power than an AA battery, cross the millions
of miles of space between Mars and the Earth, suffer interference from the Sun,
from stellar-novae, from many billions of galaxies, and 300 million vital
mobile phone conversations and TV shows, penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field
and atmosphere and maintain their coherence and legible data? I was given a
wave-particle answer; from which I formulated my own excuse for the feeble yet coherent
signals; inasmuch as the billions of diverse particles/waves signals are so
very, very small that even criss-crossing in space they have plenty of room to
avoid collision and annihilating each other. Space is very large and all
electro-magnetic signals are very small. I did not press the point by citing
minuscule Planck spaces and holographic universes; as explored below.
But here is the contradiction. Anil
Ananthaswamy, writing in The New Scientist, tells us that the LHC will crash
two contra-flow beams of proton bearing laser light and produce 600 million
collisions per second. Suddenly space, albeit inside the CERN tunnel, seems
very crowded, with barely any room for wave/particles to avoid each other. And,
some of those collisions will smash the protons into each other and produce
firework displays of primary particles from their debris. So it seems that
space isn’t so large after all and that the coherence of data flows from Venus et
al remains a puzzle – invoking incompatible thoughts of The Holographic
Universe, of that damned Aether and of Inertia. And taking us no nearer to
answering how (pure) energy turns itself into solid matter and maintains its
diverse characteristics and shapes – in relationship to all the other matter
and energy in the universe. How does the
universe spin straw into gold? How does a tadpole remain tadpole shaped? How
does a table’s surface prevent teapots falling through it?
The undefined and indefinable Higgs Boson
doesn’t provide a satisfactory theoretical answer. But at 79 years old,
Professor Higgs may mercifully learn of all the universal truths from other
worldly, forgiving dimensions, before the $9B LHC fails to find his boson. It
seems to me that the colliding wave/particle beams may well be drawn to each
other by the Expansion is Gravity mechanism (EIG) imagined here (below) and
that the resulting fractals (quarks?) then attract each other and cluster to
form the many different particles identified in the “particle zoo”. The Higgs Boson will be found to be
Hubble-Expansion vacuums – a temporary partial absence or attenuation of
energy.
The sentient universe and how
humans alter it. 15 July 08
I have been re-reading The Goldilocks
Enigma (2006) by Paul Davies, taking particular interest in his final chapters
where he draws on the ideas of John Wheeler, who with other theorists posited
‘meaning circuits’ in the ‘participatory universe’. How might such feedback from intelligent
observers function?
Given the architecture or scaffolding of
interwoven light, the Aether, the ubiquitous, highly robust, energetic holograms
on every scale, which inhabit the entire universe, as sketched out below; and
given the observed inertia of the universe, which enables material objects to
retain their characteristics, despite innumerable hugely energetic events such
as supernovas etc, which might be supposed to be powerful enough to disrupt the
holograms and destroy all lesser electro-magnetic signals, but do not in fact
obliterate even the most feeble information streams reaching our observatories;
then how does the inertia of the universe become flexible enough to accommodate
changes, including the emergence and destruction of matter?
There may be a feedback mechanism in the
holographic universe which, for example, reports the emergence of a particle of
matter (or a supernova), created from the energetic field, to the entire
electro-magnetic field – and, as a field has no parts, the feedback is
instantaneous, so that the necessary warping or bending of space-time around
the particle is allowed by inertia; and the holographic scaffolding adjusts
instantaneously, everywhere. If this feedback mechanism is allowed; it means
that every particle or cluster of particles of matter and their behaviour and impact
on the universe are felt, or known by the entire universe, simultaneously –
across the energy field which has no parts. Thus the robust, holographic,
stable light and matter fields adjust the holographic architecture for each and
every material event.
Some such clusters of matter and energy are
gathered together in such subtle patterns and interactions as to generate life,
sentience and human intelligence - ourselves. In the holographic universe the
activities of these complex life-nodes also feedback into the all encompassing
energy field, just as the existence of a massive planet bends light and so
alters the architecture of the entire universe (every light-woven holographic
bubble changes, as it must to allow for inertia), so does the universe alter
due to the information (can I be pedantic here and type “in-form-ation”) which
flows from the sentient cells in the universe.
As we are referring to the characteristics
of space-time adjusting to the presence of sentience – then such changes might
well be timeless; and so affect the past, present and future. Do we, after all,
make our own universe and our own heaven and hell? What an awesome self-responsibility.
More rough notes: on Russian
Dolls, Multiverse, String Theory, Genes, Memes and me – Maybe synthesis later:
13 April 08
Russian Dolls, implicate dimensions: With thanks to mad String Theorists. I am
alive, I exist. In DNA terms I may even be unique. I am as real as any test of
reality requires. I was just as
scientifically real as an embryo in my mother’s womb. I was partially but still
scientifically real as an unfertilised egg in my mother’s fallopian tubes/egg
sac. That half-me was just as scientifically
detectable inside my mother as an unfertilised egg in my grandmother’s egg sac.
The scale is already becoming so tiny as to defeat human instruments – but the
reality is logical. And we are only two generations (and a couple of determined
spermatozoa) back in the sequence – historically back to about 1897. And so on into endless regress – the Russian
Dolls getting ever smaller but the “long body” that results in me, in reality,
is undeniable. These many implicate
dimensions seem to be analogous to the many (from ten up to infinite) curled-up
dimensions of String-Theorists.
Many Worlds – Multiverse – Probability:
However, in following the eggs, within eggs, within eggs, within eggs back to
Eve, we are conveniently ignoring the equally real existence of Adam and his
spermatozoa at each juncture. And now it gets really complicated for Adam was
implicit in his mother’s egg sac etc. as were his numberless male descendants
in their mother’s egg sacs. And many of these nameless mothers and fathers would
have been the same parents of many sons and daughters. (We are all linked).
Because males produce vast quantities of sperm, much of which is sinfully and
biblically “spilled on the ground”, my direct line of descent cannot be deduced
by reference to specific spermatozoa. So we enter the fields of probability. If a mathematician were unconsciously
grappling with this ancesteral complexity, he/she might start to spin out Other
Universes in which to accommodate all the possibilities, all the in-potentia,
unique persons or DNA that might have emerged in the present – in my
place. BUT, the reality is that I am
here, the probability fields and equations have collapsed and my unique DNA
rules – OK! So this ancesteral search, blending the maternal and paternal
probabilities, is analogous at any moment of fertilisation to the many
universes theorems of the Multiverse lobby. Maybe.
As I have two daughters, from ova fertilized
40 and 37 years ago respectively, they now carry these probabilities and
Russian Dolls on to the next generations. As my DNA was passed on decades ago
and yet I still exist and persist, I am reminded of the joke about the tourist
asking the way in Ireland …after complicated up hill and down dale instructions
the Irishman says, “…and 3 miles before
you get to the pub, turn right”. My DNA
has already passed the turning three miles back – but what about Time
Dimensions and Dawkin’s Memes? – for another time perhaps.
So – here below we have the fact of a
holographic universe with representations in light at every possible scale and
every possible focal point of the whole universe, observed from different
angles. And above we have the fact of implicate multi-dimensions conjured by
String Theory and finally the many Universe/probability theory beloved by
Multiverse proponents.
The logic of the historic existence of me
in my Russian Dolls form and half-form is inescapable – back unto the Nth
generation. And I have absolutely no memory of those earlier forms of me and
can barely imagine them beyond the moment of my recent birth. However, the
scale of matter, atomic, particle etc, it seems would remain the same
throughout. If we reverse the process and look forward into my personal future
– is there an equally unimaginable dimension or dimensions ahead in time which
the essence of me might emerge into? This
is more than mere intellectual speculation as I have passed the age of 65 and I
am making my final turn for landing. Richard Dawkins – your comments on a
postcard please.
Needs more thought and synthesis - and we
must not omit the Hubble expansion. But at least I have got these notes down
before they drifted away to some other reality.
Is this the EUREKA
28 March 2008 - NB – From a recent New Scientist article I find I am a
Bohmian. The NS report explained the
double slit experiment Bohmian style as the (visible) light being a
carrier-wave and centre (particle or photon) – and it is the wave that creates
the characteristic shadows and light patterns.
However, even accepting this idea, the
essential mystery for me remains; how does energy convert to matter and how
does matter take and retain its form in a tumultuous universe (inertia).
A 5 minute look at articles about Bohm’s
holographic and wave theories give me confidence to now speculate:
Yes – the energy waves in the universe
extend as effectively-infinite spheres, which criss-cross at every point in the
universe (see paragraphs below). Thus large and minuscule holograms of the
universe are created on every scale and every location throughout the
space-time continuum. One paper on Bohm says he believed the material of the
human brain was also such a holographic organisation – and that therefore we
(some of us) can, in theory, access knowledge of the universe.
These carrier waves pulse and fill the
universe one moment then congregate at their centres as what we perceive as
particles. This makes, say a human eyeball, eye-crossingly complicated with
billions of particles expanding to the edge of the universe in wave form and
coalescing back to points (black-hole-like) while retaining a coherent,
relational and functioning form – but some such inertial mechanism must exist
to enable the eye to have its continuous existence and stability. And think of an infinite progression of future
human babies implicit in a single human egg – it is very complicated.
I think the inertial matrix of these
criss-cross energies, where every thing and non-thing are connected an infinite
number of times and locations, creates the stability and inform-ation that
confers form. We creations of this process can change the universal inertia by
feedback or reprocessing the energy - but only rarely – but shifts in the
energy patterns underlying our DNA are possible and we can and do adjust to our
energy-wave environment.
The HOW – how does matter emerge from the
energy field/s? still seems to me to give EIG a fighting chance of being one of
the ways of explaining the transition from energy fields to particles.
I’ll tidy this up next visit.
6 Feb 08 – NB – Do all primary particles
constantly fluctuate between point like and wave like states? Just as the
electric signals, electrons, along a telephone wire, such as an undersea cable,
create a magnetic field “at right angles to the wire” which then in turn
generates a current, which generates a field and so on, ad-infinitum, so do ALL
primary particles. What the electrons are doing is pulsing from a point
(particle) of matter to a globe (halo) of field energy (non-matter) and back
again to matter. In fact the definition of a primary particle must be that it
has this property, this pulse or flux. Photons, Electrons, Neutrinos, Quarks
etc and of course my primary fractals have this characteristic or capability.
This solves the wave-particle double-slit conundrum; the electron “shells”
surrounding the nucleus of an atom are fluctuating. Each outburst into a
globe-halo energy field fills the (extremely large) space of the energy
required to make that particle and, as it re-condenses, the space is momentarily
depleted of energy and is a void. To expand into a halo-globe the energy must
come into a contingent relationship with the existing all pervading universal
field and affect the whole field. Are all primary particles in effect
“tunnelling” at the speed of light through the wavelength-matrix of the
“Aether” (see Void 18 Jan 08 below) and to do this do they dissolve and
re-condense endlessly? IF electrons, photons, quarks etc are assemblies of my
vortex created fractals, then the halo-globe could be a cloud of fractals
(still matter) or could unwind back to pure energy. HOWEVER, the implications
for inertia – the power that (accurately) restores the status-quo – are
fantastic (is the universal field sensate?).
– Read more and re-visit and write-up.
Frank Close, The Void & that pesky Aether – 18 January
2008
Professor Frank Close,
CLICK A descriptive overview. How EIG might operate
Is the Void - empty, matter-less space - empty? Frank Close
says it is not and I agree. I gather
that Professor Close contends that empty space is a seething ocean of quivering
zero-point-energies, short-lived quantum particles and energy fluctuations –
which mathematically can be demonstrated to cancel each other, indicating that
the entire universe emerged from nothing and nowhere.
I cannot disagree with the science, the reported findings
and interpretations from cyclotrons, or the mathematics; all of which are
entirely beyond me. But, it does seem that The Void as described is closely
skirting previous speculations about the Aether – an Aether which seems to come
and go with the fashions of physicists’ training and thought-experiments.
Space or The Void is not empty. Take an emptied, evacuated,
particle-free cube of any size and at any place in the known universe, erect a
screen or an aerial or a human eye ball and it will “see” or record the whole
of creation. How does it see the universe? The cube is criss-crossed by light
travelling from all the galaxies, stars, planets, comets, dust and magnetic
storms etc which are capable of emitting an electro-magnetic signal, beam,
wave, photon, electron or any other energy. In our cube, passively receiving
information from every direction in the form of wave-particles (light); as the
electromagnetic beams zip through the cube, say from north to south, they do so
in the same manner as electricity travels, generating magnetic-fields at
right-angles to their routes – which in turn re-create electric current at
right angles to the magnetic-fields.
Thus, our cube is literally criss-crossed with energy and,
astonishingly, the energy is coherent. This complex multi-directional
pre-matter matrix forms, I imagine, the inertia of the universe. The energy
(signals, information, wave-particles) persists, perseveres, retains discrete identity,
etc across 14 billion light-years, across trillions of other space cubes,
wriggling through potentially massively disrupting signals from quasars,
black-holes, supernova, whiffs of hydrogen, wisps of helium, TV soaps,
mobile-phones, human brain signals and a host of other universal events, and
can still be detected and accurately analysed when they reach Earth. Is this coherent, robust matrix anything
other than The Aether?
EIG posits that within such a matter-less cube – note that
the smaller the imagined cube the more wavelengths will be excluded from the
observing screens (Casimir) - the miracle of transforming energy to matter
occurs. A very large “volume” of energy spirals into a minute particle. This
precipitation is triggered by the ubiquitous Hubble Expansion, which extenuates
the field-forces, thus “cools” those energies, creates mass (primary-fractals,
quarks etc) which combine to form “the particle zoo” and ultimately form human
scale elements and molecules.
Dark Matter is the continual Hubble Expansion of every zone
(sphere or cube) of space – which we measure as background gravity.
Dark Energy (the expansive force) is the release of mutual
attraction in an energy field as matter precipitates from the energy (light).
The remaining energy attenuates and expands.
(Is there a reverse of this when matter reverts to energy, as in an
atomic explosion?)
Inertia (stable universe) is initially from the light-matrix
described in the imagined space-cubes, above.
Inertia of matter (and surfaces) result from the binding
forces between the EIG primary particles, as described in other paragraphs in
this paper.
Sorry, Richard Dawkins, but we still need God to kick-start
it all.
Particles or Waves – 24 March 2007
Are photons and electrons particles
or waves and what is the speed and direction of travel? EIG would explain this
at the Fractal level (a primary Fractal of matter) as waves of electromagnetic
energy being drawn to an expanding Planck sphere where it collides with another
incoming wave, spins and forms a Fractal which fills the vacuum and is then
drawn to another vacuum in a contingent expanding sphere. The second sphere can
be in any direction from the first. The just formed solo Fractal only
stabilises when it joins with other Fractals; alone it may remain as matter,
with a spinning surface, or it may unravel in sphere 2 and return to wave form.
Thus any observed Fractal may appear in one millisecond to be matter (a primary
particle) and in the next millisecond as energy – and it may travel with equal
facility in any direction. All this occurs at the speed of propagation of
light. “Quantum” is created as Fractals combine to form larger particles. These
conglomerations of Fractals rely on their surface vacuums to hold them
together. Small sets may be dissolved back to energy but larger sets may gain
or lose specific numbers of Fractals – creating the quantum effect.
(An unpublished) Letter to New Scientist – “Inflation” 1
March 2007
Inflation of the
early universe, as reviewed in "Boomtime - NS, 3 March 07, by Peter
Coles" and Dark Energy as explored by Stuart Clarke in NS, 17 Feb 07,
might be explained if Hubble expansion and gravity are thought of as
opposite sides of the same coin. From the first moment of the Big
Bang an energy field containing the whole universe started to expand. This
matterless field, in which all zones were/are interconnected, as a field
has no parts, has a wave front. As the wave front advances it attenuates the
field, creating partial, momentary, Planck-sized vacuums that tug on
the field and check the advance of the wave front. Within some of
the Planck spheres energy collides and forms the first
particles of matter - I call them Fractals. The Hubble-Expansion of
the ubiquitous, momentarily attenuated, Planck spheres is the
basic power of gravity - and thus along with the non-radiating
material Fractals, is interpreted as Dark Matter. As Fractals (or
Quarks) are formed, they compress great amounts of energy (E=MC2) and thus
deplete the energy field, further attenuating the remaining
energy; causing first a brief vacuum-induced pause in the advance of
the wave front and then, as the matter-formation attenuation spreads
throughout the field, the binding strength of the remaining energy is
lessened and the wave front expands more rapidly. Thus Dark Energy, the
expansionary force or Einstein's Cosmological Constant, may
be the counter effect of Fractals of matter being formed,
locking away energy from the field - allowing the attenuated field to
accelerate. The Fractals are also centres of gravitation but behave
differently to gravity-like Planck-spheres in the energy-field.
In a very
small, early universe, compressed, cooling energy would, logically, precipitate more Fractals
than would a widespread field and would lock-up a significant amount of
the total energy. The sudden weakening of the binding forces of the
remaining field might account for rapid-inflation. I refer to this concept
on my website as EIG.
Dark Energy – Cosmological Constant – Quintessence – 15th
February 07
EIG came into being to attempt to account
for Dark Matter; hoping to avoid tangling with Dark Energy. But as Stuart Clark in New Scientist
describes Dark Energy as the biggest problem in cosmology (NS 17 FEB 07), it
will somehow have to be knitted into trying to build a Theory of Everything
such as EIG.
The Big-Bang still needs a God
factor to kick it into life from the original singularity, which miraculously
manifested in the No-Thing prior to Time & Space. Given that the fabric and
energy field of the universe then leapt into Hubble expansion and expanded into
the pre-existing No-Thing, EIG proposes that the expanding energy field had and
still has a wave front, which as it expands attenuates or stretches the
energy-field. This attenuation acts as a momentary brake on the expansion and,
as an energy field has no parts and is a continuum, the attenuation acts on all
zones of whatever size, simultaneously. At a quantum level, probably in spheres
of Planck size, the attenuation creates vacuums in the energy field, which is
the electro-magnetic or light field. It is these vast numbers of Planck zone
vacuums that we register as the force of gravity and as Dark Matter.
As light rushes in to fill the vacuums
and in rare instances makes a primary particle of matter – maybe a quark – the
process concentrates light from the surrounding field and locks it into matter.
E=MC2 informs us that a very large amount of light (energy) is
locked into a very tiny piece of material.
It is this continuous precipitation
of energy into matter at a quantum level which may be interpreted as Dark
Energy. Each particle of matter is a
massive amount of energy – permanently (as far as human time scales are
concerned) depleting the energy field – and locking into the store of material
vast numbers of minuscule, previously freely expanding, Planck Spheres of
energy. The energy field adjusts to the creation of matter by diluting the mass
of the non-material field. The combined affects of fewer Planck Spheres; which
are no longer expanding, creating vacuums and thus gravitational pull –
together with the depletion or dilution of the everywhere-connected energy-field,
reduces the moment by moment check on the out-rushing, expanding wave front.
Thus the wave front, the edge of the observable universe, will expand more
quickly and constantly accelerate. Thus Dark Energy is in fact the letting off
of the braking effect of gravity (vacuums) allowing the universe to more and more
respond to the original impetus that we read as Hubble Expansion. QED and QED.
The “expansive force” of Dark Energy
is also known as Quintessence (a neat label) and is Einstein’s Cosmological
Constant that he invented in his calculations to stop the then static
pre-Hubble universe from being crushed by its own gravity back into a
black-hole or singularity; and later, post Hubble, lamented as “my greatest
mistake”.
This EIG explanation of Dark Energy
seems to imply that the energy-field is finite – not infinite. But that needs
some more thought.
Reconciliation – mathematical task – 25th
September 06
I need to calculate the partial
vacuum force created within a Planck sphere (or any sphere?) as it expands via
Hubble Expansion at 2.304E-18% per second;
and compare it with the Gravitational Constant applied to that sphere.
Notes:
Vacuums “Do not Suck” they allow particles to spread out.
Cellular
Automata theory, so far gets closest to my own picture of the fundamental
structure. Authors calculate a 3D sphere has 26 (presumabaly identical)
neighbours – how? Do these neighbours touch (or interpenetrate) the
focus-sphere?
Light
speed – is this constant a function of the (changing) size of the universe? It
seems to be as utterly fundamental to QED as to Relativity.
Aether or Ether or neither – 12th September 06
From: Noel
Hodson [
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 10:46 AM
To:
Subject: The Aether
Glenn Starkman's
search for the ether (Ether returns in bid to oust dark matter - NS 26 August
06) as a field force, "not of light" but as "something that
boosts gravitational pull" is interesting. Space-time and the universe
logically is something rather than nothing. 'Nothing' may have preceded the
universe. The most remote and empty spaces, wherever we may imagine placing a
telescope, detector or screen, are criss-crossed by field forces, including
electromagnetic radiation that we can, or may attempt to, interpret; from
hot-regions, cold-regions, galaxies, super-novae, stars, planets, NASA space
probes, mobile-phones, atoms, particles, molecules and Fred Hoyle's wandering
viruses. We can observe the whole universe, on our minuscule retinas, from any
point in the universe. In this sense every location is a holographic
representation of the whole**. The fact that the signals, weak and strong,
remain reasonably coherent across vast distances and billions of years is
astonishing but undeniable. Therefore any zone, a cube or sphere, in space,
however empty it may seem and of any scale, is perhaps "conditioned"
by such intersecting fields. Matching and intersecting wavelengths result in
blank spots. Such persistent intersections may be the underlying structure, or
ether, of the universe and the source of the inertia we experience in the
material universe. Given such a universal matrix - imagined as spheres of
Planck Length diameter - where intersections occur may be points in 'empty'
space at which fundamental particles of matter, quarks or photons, are created,
as a proportion of field waves collide rather than co-exist. The unexplained
given force that pulls the signals into collision - the God factor in this idea
- is Hubble expansion, which, in expanding and attenuating every zone in the
ether at 2.304E-18 percent per second
generates the extra gravity which
astrophysicists detect everywhere. Speculating on EIG (expansion is
gravity), the mathematics become fiendishly impossible as the (rare, new)
fundamental particle moves randomly into any neighbouring, expanding Planck
sphere, which are each themselves at the heart of a Russian Doll set of
expanding spheres, ultimately as large as the accelerating Hubble universe. If
the ether is resurrected by Starkman, and is a field, then as a field has no
parts, all regions of a field are connected, which may allow for 'spooky'
action at a distance.
**PS – 2 Oct 06
– Each holographic representation of the universe is in fact unique. Imagine a
10metre diameter screen on one side of the universe capturing all the
electromagnetic signals and thus displaying a picture of the entire (visible)
universe; then imagine another screen billions of light-years away on the
“other side” of the universe. The 2nd screen will also capture a
picture of the whole universe but the angles to objects will be quite
different. There will be two different pictures of the whole. Similarly, every
hologram will be different from every other – and thus unique. If each DNA
pattern were to be influenced by “The Stars” then those DNA patterns will also
be unique.
Noel Hodson
16
email noel@noelhodson.com
+44(0)1865 760994 Fax 769384
website www.noelhodson.com
Bubbles & Black Holes – 24th July 06
Zeeya Meralis reports in New
Scientist magazine 22nd July 06, on the
work of physicist, Anatoly Svidzinsky, at Texas A&M University, who
speculates that galactic Black Holes may be mistaken identity, being in fact axions
(see next item below) that have formed bubbles at the heart of the Milky Way
and other galaxies. If axions exist, Svidzinsky calculates they would expand in
the centre of the galaxy to weigh between 1 million and 2.5 billion solar
masses – masses predicted for galactic black holes. He also assumes that very
strong gravitational fields form a surface tension that repels rather than
attracts. Periodically its expanding
surface pulls the bubble back. Thus he imagines a period of attraction, then
repulsion, then attraction – and speculates that this occurs every 20 minutes –
the pattern of X-ray flares as observed at the centre of the Milky Way and
previously thought to be from a black hole.
If such bubbles and surface-tensions
can theoretically exist; the information adds significant support to the basic
EIG idea. Perhaps EIG would complete Svidzinsky’s theory.
(PS - An Aspergers-savant, Daniel Tammet, reports that Prime Numbers are like large “smooth
pebbles”. (His book ‘Born on a Blue Day’, Hodder & Stoughton) .This may tie
in with the report below – imagining primes numbers of fractals/quarks as
stable primary particles. Note on the Music of the Primes – 27 October 04)
Making dark matter – 15th July 06
New Scientist magazine 15 July 06,
reports the efforts of Giovanni Cantatore at the Italian institute for nuclear
physics, to manufacture particles which might be the missing mass in the
universe. They fire a laser beam across a magnetic field which is 100,000 time
stronger than the Earth’s, and bounce the laser beam 44,000 times back and forth.
This creates an anomaly in the calculations for the expected polarisation of
the light – and in turn the mathematical anomaly may be caused by some of the
light being converted to 1 millielectronvolt ‘axions’ – thought to be the
missing dark matter required to glue the universe together. To test the theory a laser will be fired
through a polarising magnetic field at a wall, with a receiving polarising magnet
on the other side. Some of the photons will convert into axions, cross the
impenetrable, opaque wall, be reconverted to photons and recreate the original
laser beam.
Apart from the imagined particle,
the axion, this speculation fits well with EIG.
In the expanding universe a sphere
of Planck Space, the smallest zone possible, expands, creates a vacuum that is
filled by light, at the speed of light – formed as, say, a photon, some of
which are polarised as expected. The photon may quit the first sphere, at the
speed of light, by one of 6 exits (into one of the next interpenetrating zones
or spheres). If the photon is energised as part of a laser beam it is more
probable to exit the sphere on the continuation of its straight line trajectory
– but the beam may be dissipated by photons taking one of the other five
routes. The one-sixth, say, of the
original photons that continue in a straight line through the wall, being drawn
by vacuums from Planck Sphere to Planck Sphere, will be reduced by 5/6ths at
each layer of spheres, but some will get all the way through the wall;
travelling while in the wall as electrons. They then encounter the
re-polarising magnetic field, which gives the electrons enough energy to
convert back to photons – and re-polarises them in accord with the original
polarisation. At the wall interface,
some will escape as electrons before reaching the magnet. A very few photons
will collide in Planck Spheres with other photons and a few of such collisions
will result in a primary fractal of matter being formed by EIG. So, a tiny
fraction of the units emerging from the wall will be such fractals of matter
(maybe Quarks).
The missing Dark Matter with
gravitational pull is of course the combined affect of the Planck Spheres
nominally existing for human mathematical convenience in the electromagnetic
field, expanding due to Hubble Expansion and attenuating the stuff of the
universe, thus creating vacuums and therefore “pull” in every direction, at all
times, which cannot be shielded.
Musing on Light – 22nd May 06
1) Awareness exceeds the speed of light
– the anthropic principle again: If I
can claim to be a representative sentient being, and if I stand between two
light sources – say two stars, each one-light-year distant, the light from both
stars reaches me simultaneously. Both are propagating light at 300,000
kilometres per second – and nothing can travel faster than light – but I know
beyond all reasonable doubt that my awareness is seeing light from sources 2
light years apart, in one light year. I “know” what is happening to both stars
at double the speed of light.
2) The photons and/or wave fronts of
the propagating light meet at the place I am situated as an observer. Photons
are mass-less; as entities in the electro-magnetic field they have energy –
gained through their rate of propagation but no weight and no substance. They
are not “matter” they are not material. Let us assume that two photons from
these distant stars collide at my location. Their impact “speed” is 600,000 KPS
but as nothing can exceed 300,000 KPS and as photons are more than “nothing”,
as they are “something”, then at the
instant of collision they must halve their speed to stay within the laws of
physics; or put another way, one of the photons must lose all momentum just
before the collision. Does the halted photon become matter at that moment? Or
maybe their electro-magnetic charges repel each other and they swerve to avoid
the collision. Or maybe they embrace and enter mutual orbits – travelling at
300 KPS. Is this the spin that creates a surface that matter requires to exist?
3) Light structures – An article in New
Scientist last week told of organising nano-particles of polystyrene beads into
crystal like structures by shining laser beams on them. Depending on the type
of laser, the beads formed into hexagonal or square lattice formations which
collapsed as soon as the light switched off. The experimenter cannot explain
what is happening – and nor can anyone. Is this a visible manifestation of
underlying structures in the electro-magnetic field? Or are these structures
perhaps mega-examples of the self-organising capabilities of the EIG
fundamental particles? Can it contribute to the explanation of how the merest
beam of power from, say a fading mobile phone, retains its coherence over vast
distances – in the Bedlam created by 60 million mobile phones in the UK alone
and despite existing in the same milieu as solar flares, Stella-novae and other
hugely energetic events.?
Water is the most likely laboratory to test EIG - 10th
April 06
An article last week in New
Scientist revisited the claims that water has “memory” and that pure water,
with no residue of diluted medicines, not even a single molecule, can
nevertheless homeopathically cure patients. While on behalf of the respectable
scientific community the article dismisses such far fetched claims as unworthy
of study, it expounds on the quantum mysteries and memory capacity of water,
describing it as the “magic ingredient that transforms chemistry into
biology”. DNA is inert without water and
what has been found is that water approaching life-chemistry such as proteins
and DNA, responds to the shape and conditions of the DNA, selects “good” DNA
and catalytically enables the bases to bind (e.g. in the double helix). The
recipe to create life seems to be ‘Take a bunch of dried up old elements and
molecules, add water and shake’. The shaking (succussion) may configure the
water to undertake its catalytic tasks.
All of this life enabling magic is
in turn enabled by the strange properties of water, including – easily formed and easily broken bonds; expanding into its solid state which is less
dense than as a liquid; becoming a gas
with very little heat added; and etc. These odd properties are enabled by the
“quantum-zero-point-vibrating energies (virtual-particles)” which bind the
hydrogen atoms.
What are these zero point energies?
They may include virtual neutrinos and gravitons (if gravitons exist). They
persist in popping in and out of existence, according to Heisenberg, even if
Hell Freezes Over and the Universe grinds to a dead halt at absolute-zero
temperature.
You can no doubt see where I am
taking this.
EIG addresses the conversion of
field energies into matter and postulates that the driving force is Hubble
Expansion. The first element created that we humans can apply any tests to, is
the most common and simplest element – hydrogen. Hydrogen is the visible bridge
between energy and matter. Hydrogen is the product when straw is spun into gold
– by Princess Hubble. As the most fundamental particles, the form of and links
between these tornado like sub-quantum EIG entities may, by the most outrageous
and unsubstantiated application of wild imagination, be dictated by minuscule,
the smallest possible, Planck spaces (spherical zones) accommodating the
wavelength/s of various energies in the electromagnetic field. Imagine there are six such EIG vortices
positioned around a Planck sphere. They each spin at C2, repelling their
neighbours, and each have a local, surface vacuum, attracting their neighbours.
The six will be packed as closely as the dynamics allow – cheek by jowl but not
touching. In the centre of the six is the highest vacuum, where a seventh
vortex is trapped; this 7th vortex is the corner of another
hexagonal group – and so on ad-infinitum. How many such entities are needed to
make a hydrogen proton? And to finally make a stable hydrogen nucleus?
The zero-point-quantum-vibrations
are of course, in this EIG concept, caused by Hubble Expansion, constantly
creating the tiny vacuums, at all Planck spheres, which first attenuate and
then draw light to the attenuated vacuum; where a virtual particle emerges and
then disappears (or vice-versa) even at absolute-zero. Warm it all up a little
and we get hydrogen. Clouds of hydrogen beget stars and galaxies and spawn the
heavy elements – which are more stable than gases. Mix these heavier elements
together and we get life-giving DNA chemicals – which function only in the
presence of water (and not the chemically identical heavy water, deuterium,
which poisons all but some very primitive life forms).
Water, being 2 parts hydrogen and 1
part oxygen, manifests in the macro world the underlying fluidity of our EIG
vortices, with bonds that are easily forged and just as easily broken. The
heavy elements pack the vortices in such combinations and such quantities (n.b.
prime numbers) as to be difficult to separate.
As such, perhaps water is the laboratory in which to devise experiments
to test the EIG proposition.
EIG – QED. 10 April 06.
Descriptive Essay on EIG – how it might work
Gravitational Repulsion at Long Range – Stephen Battersby
NS
“Oh, for a theory of everything”
writes Stephen Battersby, in an article revisiting Cold Dark Matter (CDM) and
WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) In particular he raises “What’s
more the LSST (large synoptic survey telescope) could reveal whether gravity
becomes repulsive at long range.” That much debated effect which pre-dates
Einstein.
My paper, here, explores whether EIG
could account for gravity and CDM and it should further follow the line of
logic of nested spheres, expanding and attenuating the stuff of the universe.
Does some flip occur as the field effect from any one centre of expansion (say
from Planck size) travels out to spheres of galactic size and bigger? It could
be in the form of a reaction to the ever weaker vacuum created – or as energy
rushes in to fill the attenuated space? For later.
7 DEC 05 – A diversion into
Intelligent Design & Is the LIFE FORCE the 5th fundamental energy?
From my NEWS page. The media has
recently given a lot of time and space to the debate of Darwinism-V-Intelligent
Design. At the extremes of the arguments, on the one hand wild-eyed, Godless,
white coated scientists insist that the universe is accidental and evolution is
chaotic, while on the other hand, rabid, thundering preachers claim every word
in the Bible is true and, as the Bishop or Armagh calculated in 1630-odd, God made
the universe sometime in 4000BC – or thereabouts – and seeded the ground with
fossils just to confuse us. As a brainwashed lapsed Catholic, once top of the
class in Religious Studies, what do I believe?
The universe does give rise to
intelligence, as defined and typified by our own intelligence, so intelligence
has existed, in potential, from the outset. The laws of physics (and chemistry
& mathematics etc), which we have so far discovered, are capable of
intelligent extrapolation and application; these laws and their interactions we
would define as intelligently, or at least logically, structured. So insofar as
intelligence and logic are defined by us merely mortal humans, I believe the
fundamental structure of the universe does manifest intelligent design.
However, Intelligent Design as preached by the most committed bibliophiles
comes perilously close to a belief in predestination – which is a heresy.
Predestination assumes that God not only made everything as it now is, but
avers that what will happen in the next moment, hour, day, week, year etc. is
also designed by God. It is God’s Will. As such predestination denies mankind’s
free-will, denying our ability and responsibility to choose good or evil or
change ourselves or our environment; it thus denies sin and, if the logic is
followed through, leads inevitably to despair. “Despair” is one of the Cardinal
Sins which condems Catholics to the burning fires of Hell for All Eternity –
whoops. So, to compromise as we enter the new epoch of intelligent cooperation,
my position is that the universe is based on vastly intelligent and
immeasurably powerful principles, but that these interact in extraordinarily
complex ways to manifest, animate and give existence and life to all the
phenomena we observe. In summary, the universe and all things in it, does
evolve, split second by split second, governed by fundamental laws – which can
be interpreted as laws of science or laws of God or both.
And finally, why isn’t the organising
principle of the Life Force, so much in evidence wherever we care to look,
defined as one of the fundamental laws of physics alongside Gravity,
Electromagnetism, The Weak Nuclear Force and the Strong Nuclear Force?
Instanton – reproduced from New Scientist 6 August 2005.
This article is so
close to the language and to at least one of the elements of EIG that I have
typed it out in full. The journalist is not identified (copyright - NS
Nothing is not what it seems. Or rather, the
vacuum that exists throughout space and inside every atom in not empty at all.
It has an intricate structure that determines how matter is built.
Sounds bizarre? Blame it on the fact that the vacuum is permeated by a
gluon field, which is the glue that binds quarks – the fundamental units of
matter – into protons and neutrons. This gluon field can stick to itself like
sticky tape, curling up into knots called instantons. These four-dimensional vortices
are distant relatives of wormholes the space-time “tunnels” that could act as short
cuts through the universe. Instantons create the distorted vacuum-scape that
quarks have to navigate.
E cannot directly observe all this; so how do
we know instantons exist? So far, they’ve onlty been seen in computer
simulations. But new findings from Brookhaven National Laboratory in
At least, the researchers assume this is
happening, because a major effect that instantons have on the quarks suddenly
disappears.
What else do we know about instantons? They got their name because they
blink in and out of existence, like twinkling stars or bubbles in soapy water.
But despite their elusive nature, they have a powerful influence on quarks.
Quarks have a property called spin; some spin to the left, others to the right.
The equations that govern them stipulates that a left-handed quark can never
turn into a right-handed quark , and vice-versa – a rule called chiral
symmetry. When a quark that’s spinning one way passes through an instanton, it
swirls around in the vortex and becomes so disoriented that it emerges spinning
the other way round: imagine a right-handed glove swirling through a tornado so
twisted that it comes out left-handed.
Why is this so important? Well the result of all that twisting is that
the quark gains mass. Quarks start out virtually massless, but when they loop
through an instanton they gain energy, making them up to 60 times more massive.
Since quarks make up the mass of protons and neutrons, which in turn comprise
most of the mass of atoms, that means that more than 95 per cent of visible
matter owes its mass to instantons. End
What might instantons
mean in the EIG construct? EIG asks how matter (inertial
“permanent” matter) is formed from energy. EIG posits zones or spheres in the
electromagnetic energy field – perhaps equivalent to the gluons in the
gluon-field cited above. Hubble
expansion attenuates these zones at the rate of Hubble-Expansion, momentarily
reducing the internal vacuum and attracting (the glue) an inflow of light (at
the speed of light). In most instances the light energy simply fills the
partial vacuum, the zone disappears and no further event follows. The blinking
into and out of existence of these fallow zones, creating momentary partial
vacuums, could account for gravity, dark matter and dark energy. In a few cases
the inflowing light arrives from different directions and collides in the zone
(gluons). In collision the energy spins at 300kps x 300kps or 90billion kps. It
is this spin which spins straw into gold and forges the particle from energy
(is this energy equivalent to the 300 million times the heat of the surface of
the sun as above?). The spinning “quark” or swirling energy meets no resistance
and gains inertia and permanence as a particle because once spinning its
“surface” repels other “quarks” - which are the only particles small enough to
interfere with each other – while a surface vacuum, as exists at the “surface”
of a tornado, attracts other “quarks” which are thus “glued” together in groups,
spaced apart by their spin, creating a push/pull dynamic – which ultimately
form “permanent” matter. Only an
equivalent energy – maybe 300 million times hotter than the sun, can “melt”
these spinning structures and return the matter to pure energy. The article
above says that quarks start out virtually massless then in an instanton they
gain 60 times more energy and become real quarks. This seems to me to be a very
similar description as EIG, where the Hubble-expansion zones suck in light –
which, in the right conditions – creates a particle of matter. Will Brookhaven factor the Hubble Expansion
rate into their maths – just to see what it says?
PS – once formed the tiny particles
e.g. neutrinos or photons, will move through space attracted by the infinity of
expanding Hubble zones. Each zone they enter, they fill and kill the vacuum
nullifying the attraction, then the particles may leave in any direction – I
like to think they have 8 alternative routes out of a zone/sphere – which neatly
accounts for probability and the difficulty of predicting their paths. Hey Ho!
The holographic universe – thoughts on the Aether.
Wherever I position myself in the
universe the retina of my eye – of both eyes – will capture images of near and
distant objects, large and small. If I make a larger or smaller screen and
erect it anywhere in the universe it too will reflect or record such images.
What is actually happening is that the light, electro magnetic radiance from
stars and planets – and the relative darkness of “empty” space, is transmitted
across the sphere occupied by the retina or screen – no matter where I turn my
gaze. If I move a few hundred yards or a few hundred light years, light will be
found crossing the new zone I have decided to occupy. Every zone or sphere, of any size, greater
than the shortest wavelength, is criss-crossed with light – which my eyes or brain
see as coherent. This implies that every sphere is a holographic representation
of the whole universe. How real is this representation – has it the
characteristics of energy and perhaps matter?
It certainly means that no zone exists where the radiation is not
visible. How does the electromagnetic energy retain its original information
despite many collisions and impedances across vast distances? The Aether it
seems is extant – even if Einstein didn’t need it.
Memo on 9am BBC Radio 4 discussion, Roger Penrose, Carolyn
Crawford (sp?) Martin Rees, Chair, Melvyn Bragg - 17 March 05
Dark Energy – is not energy and not
necessarily dark. Martin Rees prefers to call it lambda the Cosmological
Constant, which isn’t constant. Scientific thought progresses through; Ideas,
Speculation, Conjecture, Theories, Calculation, Observation; Experiment, and
into Technologies (does it work?). We
learned that vacuum energy is not a vacuum; the background radiation, shadow of
the Big Bang is 3K above absolute zero (I speculate that this might be the
“heat” created by the movement of energy into a depleted zone which has
expanded – expanded due to Hubble expansion – but see next item below.). Mostly
they focused on the “force” – is it a force – that is causing the expansion of
the universe to accelerate, namely Dark Energy. As I am taking Hubble Expansion
as an observed given fact, what might be driving the expansion is not directly
relevant; it could be angels pulling on the circumference. We need a repulsive
force.
In EIG, what acts as a repulsive
force? It is the surfaces of the spinning fractals or basic entities of matter.
Inside the vortex is dense energy – so dense as to be matter, at the surface
the C2 spin repulses other fractals (think of spinning tops bouncing
off each other), just beyond the surface is a “constant” partial vacuum from where
energy is taken to feed the vortex – a kind of meniscus of energy. It is the
dynamic balance between the forces that brings inertia. And thus stabilises the
universe.
These and other scientists seem
never to picture the universe as teeming with energy, everywhere. Hold up a
mirror or radar dish anywhere in our (visible) universe and it will record or
reflect energy – light – electromagnetic spectrum energy. It is undeniably
there. It could be seen with the naked eye crossing that area of space. What
EIG addresses is how that energy, that infinite (as far as we know) field,
produces matter. Did it only do so in the BB or does the process continue when
light beams collide? Either will work for EIG – but space is NOT empty. Are
scientists hung up on being labelled as believing in, the aether which Einstein found no need for in
his equations?
Memo on March 05 Scientific American article, Misconceptions
about the Big Bang. - 17 March 05
Very clear article by Charles H.
Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis which is worth archiving for EIG. New to me is
the statement that “objects inside the expanding universe do not expand.” They
cite as an example of an object, a Galaxy. This is perturbing as I have to date
assumed that everything, every spheroid zone, in the universe expands at the
same rate 2.304E-18% per
second. However, EIG still works if a fractal of matter, formed in the C2 vortex
from pure energy, ceases to expand once it has been formed. The “extra” gravity
in dense matter would then have to be explained – not by the surface shell of
the vacuum holding out to create a stronger vacuum – but perhaps that to feed a
collection of fractal vortex’s which have come together in a stable union –
billions of them to make a particle – the shared or merged halo of depleted
energy at the surface of the fractals, is a stronger vacuum relative to the
number of fractals – Thus denser matter = more fractals = more pull.
In some
ways this is neater than my earlier idea as the energy is spun into matter
(straw into gold) by the C2 spin and as it is transformed, it passes a threshold which makes it
permanently matter; reassuring if you don’t want your universe to evaporate one
day. This none expansion of material
objects also removes the need for me to work out how much a six foot man
expands in his lifetime – a compound interest formula of a very small number
that my EXCEL can’t cope with.
Memo on the double-slit experiment – 15 March 05
See article in NS 5 March 05, Page
14, Peter Rodgers, on the double slit experiment, demonstrated across a time
lapse. Consider and revisit.
Memo on Matter and Anti-Matter – 25th November 04
There is renewed speculation about
anti-matter, whether it exists, where it exists and what it is; alongside ideas
that diverse forms of matter might have different forms of gravity. This EIG
idea has also posited that matter may behave differently when it is compacted –
yet still expanding. On my next visit to this EIG theory I want to think about
a “Matter Line” like the Number-Line in maths (does a matter-line already exist?
R Feynman maybe?). At one end would be the densest of materials – down to the
merest wisp of ephemeral forms – then extending beyond zero (pure energy) into
negative particles and anti-matter. EIG indicates that anti-matter will be
shown to be vacuums in the stuff of the universe – which has an attractive
logical simplicity to it. (NB which math formulas deal with expanding spheres??
Pressure, gases, liquids?? And
particularly the sphere/s surrounding an object sphere of low pressure –
Weather systems perhaps).
Note on the Music of the Primes – 27 October 04
The Music of the
Primes by Marcus du Sautoy is almost
completely incomprehensible to a non-mathematician such as me. But it triggers
a vague thought that I want to write down and thus crystallise.
The book is about prime numbers
(numbers that can only be divided by themselves or one without a remainder –
thus they are the indivisible building blocks of all other numbers) and The
Riemann Hypothesis. Bernhard Riemann (1826-66), conceived a “Zeta Landscape”
being a four-dimensional model of mathematical functions based on the
zeta-function, created “in Euler’s day” (1707-1783) into which Bernhard Riemann
inputted real numbers (numbers on the mathematicians’ “number-line”) and, as his innovative new
step, he also inputted imaginary numbers
(denoted by “i” of which the most usual example is the square root of minus
one).
Four dimensions can be more
pictorially thought of as four consequences – or four impacts – of a changing
number. For example, as the author explains by reference to the economists’
Interest Rate, changes in the birth-rate have impacts on a large number of
factors or dimensions of society – total population, housing required, schools,
hospitals, transport, clothing etc. and some of these factors have consequences
for the future on a time-line that is mathematically infinite. To draw the reality of all such “dimensions”
on a single graph or with a three dimensional model, from a single function or
formula, is impossible – but they are nevertheless real effects or dimensions.
Riemann bridged fields of
mathematics that had not before been linked and saw or conceived with the inner
vision of a mathematician and geometrician that his zeta-landscape map could be
extrapolated from peaks and valleys, including a single peak that rose to
infinity (for the number one), down to “sea-level” where the outcome was always
zero.
Here I am completely lost. But I
read and can only believe that from this sea-shore of zero results, stretching
north and south as far as imagination allows, these sea-level or zero results
for any and all numbers (East & West or positive and negative numbers) fed
into the zeta-landscape-function allow us to count – by counting the zero’s –
the occurrences of prime-numbers between values, say from 0 to 10 or from 0 to
100,000,000. And it seems that Carl Gauss (1772-1855) had earlier estimated
this same occurrence up to 100 million and his logarithmic based calculation
Gauss’s Prime Number Conjecture, checked in modern times by actually
identifying each prime-number on a computer (5,761,455 primes up to 100M –
excluding the number one), showed only 754 more primes than reality – a tiny
error of 100th of 1%.
Riemann did the same estimate on his
zeta-landscape and reduced the error to 97 extra primes – just 1000th
of one percent wrong.
Riemann then plotted where the
“significant” zeros lay on his map or landscape and found that they lined up –
on what has been termed a magical-ley-line. Not only do the zeros, representing
primes, line up but they occur in patterns that come close to predicting what
the next prime number will be. So far no recurring pattern has been identified
in the sequence of prime-numbers that allows the next prime-number to be
calculated from the sequence. Riemann then hypothesised that all the zeros,
however many primes there are to infinity, would line up. That is the Riemann Hypothesis – with a million
dollars still waiting for the mathematical proof.
What has this to do with music and
what is my point? Part of the basis underlying Riemann’s zeta-landscape is the
discovery by Pythagoras (ancient
Whole, indivisible numbers put me in
mind of the primary particles, the fractals and building blocks of the universe
– that EIG – Expansion is Gravity, speculates about.
Marcus du Sautoy continues his
narrative to include Probability Theory, Quantum Drums and Chaos Theory (which
is actually order-out-of-chaos theory). Many brilliant modern mathematicians
have and are contributing to the processes that bring progress – Marcus du
Sautoy particularly cites the work of Hugh Montgomery (Princeton, Michigan and
Cambridge) who followed Riemann’s zeros along the ley-line and found in 1971
that they would repel each other (space out) whereas primes tend to cluster or attract
each other. And he observed that the zeros distribution was not random. His distribution graphs uncannily mirrored
similar graphs being drawn from experiments for the quantum energy calculations
of the 68th element in the periodic tables Erbium.
What is fundamental to quantum
physics starting with black-body radiation and, as yet, not understood is the
quantum leap – the discrete changes – as if in sudden and not smooth steps –
between energy levels. Similar steps occur at a very detailed level in prime
number sequences “the prime number staircase”.
On a Cray computer Andrew Odlyzko at AT&T looked for Riemann zeros
up to 10 trillion and found 100,000 zeros. A not entirely convincing pattern
started to emerge. Odlyzko took the computations up to 1020 and
found that plotting the sequence of Riemann zeros almost exactly matched
similar patterns – quantum probability energies – found in the heavy nuclei of
complex atoms – as if “being produced by some complicated mathematical drum”.
Here at last is my
NB.
EIG posits an idea as to how matter
(particles) is created from pure energy (light
- the electromagnetic field) -
namely by Hubble expansion sucking in energy and spinning it to form a surface.
These primary fractals, as in string-theory, may be no larger than Planck’s Length which is 10-35 metres. These
universal fractals are, like prime numbers, by definition indivisible –
any division renders them back to pure energy. Like Riemann’s zeros they repel
each other and they seek even spacing – but, like the prime number sequences,
they are subject to forces that draw them together in patterns, like quantum
energies, and clump them together. Do these universal fractals bind together in
prime-number units? Are other numbers, non-prime numbers, of universal fractals
inherently unstable?
The most recently calculated primes
are 100 digits long. They are immense numbers; but even such vast numbers of
universal fractals clumped together – say in the heart of a super-massive star
or black-hole (but still Hubble expanding) – are not inconceivable. Just how many universal fractals can we fit
on the head of a pin?
Think on’t Lad !
News update – 3 September 04.
The search for the Higgs Boson – an
alleged massive particle which would account for Dark Matter and Energy (85%
of the universe) – continues as does the
search for anti-neutrinos. An anti-neutrino is NOT the antiparticle of a
neutrino in the way that positrons are the anti-matter antiparticles of electrons
– electrons reversed as it were. An antineutrino, if any exist, would be a sort
of shadow neutrino, which has already been defined, at only 0.44 electron
volts, as a “ghostly particle” so an antineutrino would be the ghost of a
ghost. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in
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
(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.
MAP, COBE and
Some Astronomical EIG Numbers
Stephen Battersby reported in New Scientist on
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.
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 1/25th 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.
Sloan
Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
200 astronomers from 13 countries collaborate in the SDSS
project. They report in November 2003 that from drawing a Galactic Map of
200,000 galaxies, about 6% of the observable universe, their calculations
confirm the existence of dark energy. They find:
70% is Dark Energy
25% is Dark Matter
5% is Ordinary Matter
This theory proposes that both
dark matter and dark energy are manifestations of the temporary weak vacuums
created by Hubble Expansion.
PRE-MAP REPORT Calculations.
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.
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.
Radio and TV
signals – permanent patterns in Space - inertia
Radio
signals persist in intelligible form for decades – in principle for ever, if we
have sufficiently sensitive receivers. How can this be? It implies that once
patterned the electro-magnetic spectrum holds that pattern across vast
distances and across eons of time – How? It implies that radio wave patterns
are not interfered with as they cross air and space by uncountable numbers of other
patterned waves – How? It is not due to immense power of transmission as this
applies to the faintest signals from the early Voyager etc space craft now at
the edge of the solar system and beaming out decipherable data with the
millionth power of an ordinary torch battery – How? How does the EM spectrum
record and carry and preserve all the messages, all the TV programmes, all the
radio, all the satellite phone messages ???
Discuss.
Casimir and
EIG – gravity within dense matter.
The Casimir
effect can be illustrated by two completely flat machined plates – say of a
relatively inert material such as pot electrical insulator material – brought
together to within the wavelength of at least part of the electromagnetic
spectrum. The plates are drawn to each other, or more accurately they are both
drawn to the partial vacuum between them caused by the exclusion of some
wavelengths. Imagine the plates being held apart by inert washers inserted in
the gap. The vacuum force will continue to pull and the washers will deny the
pull, holding the plates in stasis – apart. From the EIG perspective this is
very interesting as for EIG it is necessary to explain why dense matter, say
within a planet, exerts a stronger attraction (gravity) than do spheres of
expanding space. If all are expanding at the same Hubble rate it would seem
logical that the temporary vacuums would be consistent. However, if the Casimir
Effect operates between particles or even molecules of matter that is dense (in
close proximity) then just as with the experimental Casimir plates, some energy
wavelengths will (always) be excluded and the relative vacuum between or within
such particles will not be refilled by the whole electromagnetic spectrum of
wavelengths in the way that occurs in open space, or as quickly. It can be
imagined that the Casimir Effect creates a “permanent” stronger vacuum within
dense matter – say in the heart of a star. Such “permanent” differentials
between the ambient energy fields (the stuff of the universe) and matter will
be stronger attractors and could be part of an explanation for Hubble expansion
acting more strongly within dense matter. It might even be scientifically
testable in a laboratory.
It is
interesting that the Casimir Effect exists at all as in the popularised
explanations there is no mention of sealing the edges of the gap between the
two plates so as to preserve any partial vacuum. Presumably the Casimir
experiment takes place in an air-vacuum chamber? It must simply be that longer
wavelengths cannot exist between the plates and that the lack of these makes
the density of the energy field between the plates less than the ambient
density of the surrounding (complete) field. If so, this is exactly the type of
phenomena that EIG needs for its credibility.
Definitions
Supra-Vacuum – a glimpse from the space-time
continuum to the No-thing that existed “before” the universe. These
supra-vacuums would occur in the first few moments of expansion from a Big-Bang
singularity and would cause the expanding energy to arc back on itself to fill
the vacuums; causing many collisions between rays of energy (light) and
creating the majority of matter fractals.
Super-Vacuums – are vacuums caused by Hubble
expansion of the universe when the electromagnetic spectrum, the “stuff” of the
universe, expands momentarily and Light rushes in, at the speed of light, to
fill the vacuum.
Surface-Vacuum
- the zone around a fractal of matter that is depleted as the energy is
utilised and drawn into the spinning fractal . Surface Vacuums create an
attraction between fractals while the spinning surfaces repel each another,
thus creating a dynamic tension.
Letters to science magazines (not published)
GRAVITY MATTERS – my
letter to Scientific American
Mordehai Milgrom’s excellent
article Does Dark Matter Really Exist (SA V287No2 Aug02), together with the
panel by Anthony Aguirre, clearly informs me, an amateur, for the first time,
of the factors that stimulate CDM theories and Professor Milgrom’s 20 year old
alternative theory MOND that arises from the observation that a space shuttle
falls to Earth at one hundred billion times the acceleration that Earth and its
Solar System fall towards the centre of the Milky Way. I can only speculate, as
I have not the training to calculate, that the Hubble constant for the
expansion of the universe (extrapolated from observed Red Shift, not
light-speed, thus mitigating the wholly circular arguments that universal
expansion might otherwise be reliant on) is, while mentioned in the article,
not given as prominent a place in these theories as it may deserve. Hubble
expansion measured at the visible horizon of the universe, a horizon that
recedes from us at the speed of light, is approximately 2.64E-18 or in laymen’s terms 0.00000000000000264% per
second. This endless, minuscule
expansion of every sphere, large or small, represents a constant acceleration
of the surface or horizon of that sphere. Einstein postulated that constant
acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. It is therefore worth spending
some thought on the idea that gravity may be partially driven by Hubble
expansion. Professor Milgrom cites as an exciting possibility, “The vacuum. The vacuum is what is left when
one annihilates all matter (or equivalently energy) that can be annihilated
…….. the interaction of the vacuum with particles might contribute to the
inertia of objects ….. the vacuum also enters cosmology as an explanation for
cold dark matter.” I believe that the vacuum of any sphere in the universe
is momentarily increased by Hubble, as the stuff inside that sphere (radiation,
plasma or particles) attenuates, before being refilled from the omni-present
background radiation. I have further speculated that sphere’s of matter – say
at the centre of large planets or stars – or in any element, have formed
surfaces that hold back the incoming radiation for fractionally longer, and
thus have a stronger, attractive vacuum for a microcosm of time. It is these
ubiquitous Hubble vacuums, varying with the density of matter, I believe, that
are the reality behind CDM as they pull on each another.
Opinion Letters, New Scientist Magazine
………… and an earlier letter to New Scientist.
…………..
The three articles on black-holes in New Scientist 1st April 2000; by Marcus Chown, on
atom sized black holes and by Nigel Henbest and by Stephen Battersby on
quasars, radio jets and galactic sized black holes tacitly assume that
black-holes are collapsed very large objects, compressed by gravity – a force
that, as Newton’s apple demonstrated, is self-evident but, as the continuing
search for gravitons and CDM illustrate, is not yet understood. The observed
and theoretical characteristics of black-holes, particularly the emission of
immensely energetic radio jets, might better fit with Hubbles’s expanding
universe than with the concept of matter crushing itself into the total
annihilation of a singularity and quitting the universe.
Einstein demonstrated in his constantly
accelerating windowless elevator thought experiment that gravity and constant
acceleration are indistinguishable from each other. If Hubble expansion is to
be incorporated into universal theories then every zone (e.g. sphere), at every
scale, sub-atomic through galactic to universal, must logically be expanding at
a constant (or variable) rate of acceleration. Einstein tells us that we would
not know whether our experience of weight was due to gravity or expansion – if
we were to stand on the surface of a sphere in Hubble’s ever expanding universe.
We must ask ourselves just what is expanding in Hubble’s universe – just what
is the fabric of the universe that stretches and grows infinitely; and what
local effect does such expansion have on attenuating energy and matter.
The existence of galactic and atomic black holes
implies that black holes may exist at any scale in any part of the universe.
If, as Fred Hoyle postulated many years ago (before recanting), the universe is
being constantly created at all points and if, as Einstein demonstrated, we
cannot distinguish between expansion (acceleration) and gravity and if Hubble’s
interpretation of red-shift being evidence for universal expansion is correct,
the ubiquitous black holes could be caused by expansion – and they could be
spawning not destroying matter.
Thought of as vacuums created by the attenuation of
the stuff of the universe as it expands, black holes would exhibit exactly the
same behaviour and characteristics as collapsed gravitational objects. The
power of expansion would attenuate the universal fabric and nature, abhorring a
vacuum would rush to fill the void – with energy and matter. As the void of a
black hole was filled, bearing in mind that the zone is constantly expanding, a
pulse would occur of expansion, void, fill, expansion. The in-rushing or
in-falling energy and matter would collide, become plasma due to the impact and
recoil. It may be postulated that the collisions of energy in these zones
created and still create primary particles.
Thus paradoxically, zones of Hubble expansion would
attract matter and energy as the zones push out their boundaries. This
expansive, attractive force would in all ways be indistinguishable from
gravity. CDM would be explained by the existence of innumerable, invisible
black holes. Black holes, rather than being The Great Annihilators of Nigel
Henbest’s article, would in fact be the fundamental unifying force and the
creators of the universe.
Noel Hodson
14 Brookside
To Letters@newscientist.com
Expansion is Gravity (EIG)
The continued searches for Gravity Waves
(First results on gravity waves; New Scientist 19th April 2003) and for the
missing Cold Dark Matter and Dark Energy - being 96% of the mass of the
universe, still leaves room for other hypothesis such as, Expansion Is Gravity
(EIG). A "hypothesis" as your reader Brian Myers correctly points
out, is not advanced as a "theory".
The Hubble universal expansion constant
calculates as a minuscule 3.0336E-18% per second. Applied to a six foot person,
he or she, ignoring the compound effect, grows by an undetectable 1.328
millionths of a millimeter per year. If
Earth's 16ft per second gravity field
were to be due to the expanding globe it would represent a rate of growth of
9.1448E-07% per second; still very small but an immense 11 decimal places
difference from the universal percentage; but perhaps dense matter develops
different expansion properties than do zones in open space. As the search is
for a tiny, ubiquitous field force that cannot be shielded and that acts in
every direction, on every scale, simultaneously, Hubble expansion could be the
culprit.
Yours truly
Noel Hodson
PS - if NS editors (or readers) would like
to check the fairly simple arithmetic, I'd be happy to forward my EXCEL
calcs. The sums above are however
correct. The EIG hypothesis is expanded on my web site
-http://www.noelhodson,com
Noel Hodson
Tel 00 44 (0) 1865 760994
Business Projects Manager
Telework Consultant
http://www.noelhodson.com
31 May 03
New
Scientist Letters
Dump Quarks
From Tom
Lockyer
Your
article on protons shows quite clearly that the standard model, after 40 years,
still has not revealed the structure of these subatomic articles (3 May, P34).
When is science going to give up on quarks as a lost cause? In retrospect, the
quark model never has had any results to recommend it. The quark has failed
miserably to answer the simplest questions about the proton, such as its mass,
charge or magnetic moment. Worse, the theory has had to postulate unprecedented
fractional charges, and envision proton quarks as three thingies in a bag.
Following the discovery of a third “strange” quark, someone noticed that the
bagged three quarks violated the Pauli exclusion principle. Theorists got
around this by postulating quark colour forces called red, blue and green that
combine instantaneously to form a colourless combination. The fact that the
quark model consistently failed has resulted in the postulation of many crazy
“patches” to shore up the theory. For example to hold the quarks together,
gluons were postulated and given the unprecedented ability to be stronger at
large distances and “asymptomatically” free at short distances. And to explain
our failure to detect quarks, it was postulated that if you break the gluon
“strings”, quarks form on the free ends.
The sad
fact is that particle physicists are stuck with a very bad model, and seem
content to maintain the status quo, just to feed their wives and kiddies.
This
letter, I assume written by an expert, Tom Lockyer, points up the great
difficulties of creating a model that works and passes the peer pressure test.
And it leaves hope that new ideas might be explored as not all the answers are
known yet.
“Quark” is the name currently given to the
“fractals” of matter from which all matter is thought to be made. In the EIG
concept these fractals are formed by colliding fields of light (electromagnetic
spectrum) that spin to form basic particles. The colliding light waves or beams
reinforce the rate of spin and wind-in or pack-in energy to the point where it
becomes dense. These spinning fractals have surfaces formed by the immense spin
rate of the energy and a depleted outer zone, a local vacuum, created by the
inner pull, due to Hubble expansion, and the inward spin of energy – the
syndrome of the ballet dancer drawing in her arms and spinning all the faster -
similar to vortices that can be studied in the macro environment. The rotating surface repels other fractals
while the local vacuum holds them together.
This dynamic tension between push and pull is, I imagine, the
fundamental glue of the universe, constantly reapplied as long as Hubble
expansion continues.