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 – Noel Hodson, Oxford.

<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>

 

 

 

  

  Updated 

12 April 2010

 

 

TOE

Theory of Everything

TOE

EIG Expansion is Gravity

&

The sentient universe

 

Email: noel@noelhodson.com

 

 

CLICK for TOE Archives, articles and work notes

 

 

TOE

Theory of Everything

TOE

EIG Expansion is Gravity

 

 

 

 

 

Home Page -      http://www.noelhodson.com

 

 

CONTENTS

12 April 2010 – Quarks – Rest Mass – Protons – Neutrons – EIG still works, OK ! 3

What this website discusses – an executive summary. 4

Expansion is Gravity - 2007 – the EIG model.. 5

BROOKHAVEN - ECHO OF EIG’s VORTICES. 6

22 February 2010 – Quark-Gluon plasma forms vortices. 6

NOT NEARLY THERE – QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE?. 8

25 January 2010 – Bouncing photons and constant in-falling. 8

1 DEC 09 – The Electric Universe - A dilemma: 10

The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill & David Talbot - 3 Nov 09. 11

Heavyweight empty space.  28 Sept 09. 12

Malevolent and Benevolent Viruses. Human DNA exchanges. 2 September 09 + later notes. (A brief aside from Gravity). 12

DNA – 4 September 2009. 14

DNA – 5 September 2009. 14

Are there two causes of gravity?  First Hubble Expansion, Second Casimir Exclusions? – 13 September 09. 14

Is the Casimir-Vacuum gravity? – 20 August 09. 16

Crab Nebula explosion expands to the edges of the universe; and the Life Force, ranked with Gravity, Nuclear and Electrical Forces – 7 Jul 09. 16

Melvyn Bragg & Co - vacuums or not? – 30 Apr 09. 17

“Ooops” Change to the expansion of the universe constant – 11 March 09. 18

“Spooky” action at a distance – 21 Feb. 09. 19

All the world’s a hologram” – 17 Jan 09 & 19 Jan 09. 20

Three illuminated thoughts - 2 November 08. 21

Wikipedia - Massless particles. 22

The LHC and a contradiction - 12 September 08. 24

The sentient universe and how humans alter it. 15 July 08. 25

More rough notes: on Russian Dolls, Multiverse, String Theory, Genes, Memes and me – Maybe synthesis later: 13 April 08  26

Is this the EUREKA moment? 28 March 2008. 27

Frank Close, The Void & that pesky Aether – 18 January 2008. 29

Particles or Waves – 24 March 2007. 30

(An unpublished) Letter to New Scientist – “Inflation” 1 March 2007. 31

Dark Energy – Cosmological Constant – Quintessence – 15th February 07. 31

Reconciliation – mathematical task – 25th September 06. 32

Aether or Ether or neither – 12th September 06. 33

Bubbles & Black Holes – 24th July 06. 34

Making dark matter – 15th July 06. 35

Musing on Light – 22nd May 06. 36

Water is the most likely laboratory to test EIG - 10th April 06. 37

Descriptive Essay on EIG – how it might work. 38

Gravitational Repulsion at Long Range – Stephen Battersby NS 24th Sept 05. 38

7 DEC 05 – A diversion into Intelligent Design & Is the LIFE FORCE the 5th fundamental energy?. 39

Instanton – reproduced from New Scientist 6 August 2005. 39

The holographic universe – thoughts on the Aether. 41

Memo on 9am BBC Radio 4 discussion, Roger Penrose, Carolyn Crawford (sp?) Martin Rees, Chair, Melvyn Bragg - 17 March 05  42

Memo on March 05 Scientific American article, Misconceptions about the Big Bang. - 17 March 05. 42

Memo on the double-slit experiment – 15 March 05. 43

Memo on Matter and Anti-Matter – 25th November 04. 43

Note on the Music of the Primes – 27 October 04. 43

News update – 3 September 04. 46

Introduction, pre-EIG.. 47

MAP, COBE and Some Astronomical EIG Numbers. 47

Six foot man expands infinitely – says MAP and COBE.. 48

Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) 49

Radio and TV signals – permanent patterns in Space - inertia. 50

Casimir and EIG – gravity within dense matter. 50

Definitions. 51

Letters to science magazines (not published) 52

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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 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.

 

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

 

http://www.newscientist.com/articlevideo/dn18526/66623156001-atom-smasher-shows-vacuum-of-space-in-a-twist.html   

 

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 Upton, New York, has seen signs of such vortices in fireballs that mimic conditions when the universe was just a few microseconds old.

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 Washington DC.

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 Rutherford bouncing Alpha Particles 4 (helium nuclei) off gold nuclei 196.

 

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, Oxford” – an interesting interpolation of foreign matter.  This well illustrated book (TEU) is not to be confused with another excellent book, Electric Universe by David Bodanis, which tells the very human stories of the historic roots and discoveries of Earthly electricity.  Talbot, Thornhill and their colleagues, state that the premiere universal motive force is electricity, instead of gravity.  Electricity (electric currents) has to be differentiated from interplanetary and  interstellar magnetic fields and plasma, which are fully acknowledged by astrophysicists; the major theoretical distinction being that “the Standard Model physics establishment”  regards such plasma and fields as electrically neutral, without electric currents – while TEU claims electrical connections and interactions  between all comets, asteroids, moons, planets, stars and galaxies.  In our solar system the Sun is the positive anode, contained in a Langmuir Sheath, the planets are negatively charged and the major circuit is completed by a plasma field-cathode at the magnetopause and heliosphere where the Sun’s influence ends and interstellar deep-space begins. TEU reminds readers that sub-atomic electrical-forces are a thousand, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times more powerful than gravity.  (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1)  which I have no reason to doubt.

 

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,
Cardiff University.
Mobile: 07778 389243
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 Greenland.  And we are skilled at isolating theses nasty little DNA packages in laboratories; on which we then wage war.  Where would one look for benevolent viruses?  There may be clues in popular history – miracles, sacred places, saints and healers, shaman, priests, witchdoctors, charismatic heroes, and etc.  The first step would be to note a mass cure or betterment affecting a large group – and then look for stray, new, DNA packs, and analyse their impact.  If some viruses can kill – maybe some can also cure?   Viruses ....I go further.  Is it the task of post-menopausal wise aging men and women to generate benevolent viruses and memes - to inform (in-form) the rest of the human race?  There must be several mechanisms for passing on good genes and good ideas.

 

 

 

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 Cambridge scientist analysing 6 billion year old meteorites, older than our planet, which she found contain viable, complex protein molecules “from outer space”.  I am reminded of Viruses from Space, by Sir Fred Hoyle and Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe, who proposed that common illnesses are sometimes such star struck strands, arriving in Earth’s upper atmosphere, eventually swept to the ground by rainfalls and snowfalls, where they immediately attach to the DNA in our cells – and multiply – and make us ill en-masse.  They speculated that life may have come here that way and that evolutionary jumps can occur as the new material joins our DNA.  This 1970’s theory looks all the more plausible today. IF snips and scraps of foreign DNA can attach to our own precious and unique DNA – which they can – then humans are even less immutable than supposed. It is possible that in human society, we are all shedding and receiving one another’s snips, and being subtly changed as they join our own.  Hence, long term couples grow alike and grow to look their pets – or vice versa.  It supports the lunacy of cults and Howard Hughes, who isolate themselves from pernicious influences.  And “judge a man by the company he keeps”.  But it does not, as yet, throw more light on the organising life-force, which battles throughout the universe, moment by moment with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

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 Oxford for 3 hours - if he had flu’ I and others would likely get a dose of it; does he similarly pass on benevolent strands?  Is this a mechanism for the transmission of “charisma” good and bad and for mass adulation – and unconscious influences on others?

 

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 , OXFORD, UK,  noel@noelhodson.com Tel +44(0)1865 760994 

 

 

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 Hanover, may be due to buffeting by “the quantum convulsions of space-time”.  I find the explanation of holographic – making a three-dimensional thing, or even a five dimensional pretzel shaped thing, from two dimensional images on the event horizon of our universe – a horizon we are inside – and a three dimensional thing that might be as small as Planck Space divided by the Speed of Light, or far larger “graininess” at 10-16 metres, – is well beyond my imagination.

 

 

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 University of Florida, have come up with a way photons could, after all, have mass (Physical Review Letters, vol 89, p 101301). They say the secret lies in the vacuum energy that permeates all of space.

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 Geneva; but most of mankind did not.

 

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 moment? 28 March 2008.

 

 

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, Oxford University, has written The Void (University Press), which is one of the clearest analyses of the stuff that makes the universe that I have read.  As I struggle to comprehend, absorb and encompass all the information in his book, subtitled “This is an exploration of nothing” I want to note my own ideas inspired by The Void, possibly key ideas, – and perhaps later to update my poetic description of The Theory of Everything for the first time in 4 years – linked below.

  

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

 

 

 

 

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 Brookside

OXFORD OX3 7PJ, UK

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 24th Sept 05

 

“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 6-8-05 page 50 THE WORD).

 

 

 

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 Upton, New York, hint at their ghostly existence (Physical Review Letters, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.102302). In Brookhaven’s particle accelerator, a fireball 300 million times hotter than the surface of the sun melts” the vacuum. As a result, the gluon field loses its stickiness, quarks break free from one another and the instantons unfurl and disappear.

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 Greece) that musical harmony requires sound vibrations that are related to each other by whole number divisions – not parts of whole numbers. i.e. If the first pleasing note is played on a 20 pint jug of water, harmonious notes will be found at 10 pints, 5 pints, 4 pints, 40 pints etc. whereas discordant notes occur at 19 pints,  3 pints and all numbers that when divided into 20 leave a remainder.  These whole number relationships find parallels with prime-numbers, the building blocks of all numbers.

 

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. Montgomery’s thought was that perhaps the reality of quantum energies in atoms was the pattern that underlies the sequence of Riemann’s zeros. The hugely complex quantum energy sequences are mapped as if on a vibrating drum-skin – not as if they are a planetary system. 

 

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 Heidelberg, Germany have a laboratory deep below an Italian mountain range at Gran Sasso where the decay of enriched Germanium 76, shielded from all known sources of radiation, to Selenium 76 is observed. They claim to have seen 29 events in 10 years which they claim makes it 99.997% certain that these are real events, which as the decay process occurs do produce a neutrino and an antineutrino. Steven Elliot at the University of Washington State, Seattle, disputes the findings as does Ron Brodzinski at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington and as do the Russian physicists who supplied the enriched germanium from the Kurchatov Institute. The import of finding antineutrinos is that it would help explain how the universe evolved from the Big-Bang to contain matter not anti-matter or a neutral balance of pure light without any matter. Dave Wark of the University of Sussex, UK says “We now know that we must look beyond the standard model to explain dark matter. (New Scientist 4 Sept. 04.) – Back to this EIG theory perhaps?

 

Introduction, pre-EIG

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I would add to his list:

(8)    What is Inertia?

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

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

 

And finally,

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

 

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

 

 

EIG Diagram

MAP, COBE and Some Astronomical EIG Numbers

 

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

 

Age of the universe is 13.7 billion years

Shape is Flat

Age when light first appeared is 200 million years

Contents include:

4% ordinary matter

23% dark matter Nature unknown

73% dark energy Nature unknown

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

It is                            2.304E-18% per second.  

My figure was           2.348E-18% per second.

 

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 17th August 2002.

 

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. …………..

8 April 2000. By Fax and Email.

 

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

Noelhodson@btconnect.com

14 Brookside OXFORD OX3 7PJ

 

 

To Letters@newscientist.com

Expansion is Gravity (EIG)

18th April 2003

 

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

OXFORD OX3 7PJ, UK

http://www.noelhodson.com

 

31 May 03

New Scientist Letters

 

Dump Quarks

 

From Tom Lockyer

Los Altos, California, USA

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOE Theory of Everything  TOE

 

EIG Expansion is Gravity

 

Universal Model

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:SO1LxT-L8SoJ:www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html+TOE+Theory+of+Everything&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

SW2000 Telework Studies

www.noelhodson.com

 

13-Dec-04

 

2005

TELEWORK

STATISTICS

2005

 

2005
TELEWORK

 NEWS

2005

INFORMATION SOCIETY Property VALUES 

TELEWORK

GUIDELINES 

TELEWORK

LINKS

 

 

TELEWORK Transport Energy

MAIN SITE INDEX        HOME PAGE

TELEWORK

SAVINGS excel CALCULATOR

 

TRAINING FOR TELEWORK.

DISPERSED

TEAMS

INFORMATION SOCIETY

TRANSPORT

GRIDLOCK

Telework-Complete

for HR  Managers

EU

Telework Charter

TELEWORK

CLIENTS

BUSINESS  TAX PLANNING

WHAT-IF? FORECASTS

NOEL HODSON PROJECTS CV

NOEL HODSON

DETAILED CV

EXPERTS UNLIMITED

OFFSHORE

& TAXES

The Business

Bible

BUSINESS CLIENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIETAL PAPERS

Politics, Economics

 & Hobby-Physics

FUTURE Forecasts

BIRTHRIGHT

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

EPICUS

The Party of Informed

Consensus

TOE -  A THEORY OF EVERYTHING

FUTURE

POLITICS

GLOBAL WARMING

BOOKS, POEMS

Creative Writing, Art.

THE HAUNTING OF A FAVOURITE SON

AD2516

After Global Warming

Tales from Heaton Moor

Cure Shyness

& Social Phobia

The Alchemists Lad

ISAAC NEWTON

The Celibate

Priest

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=TOE+Theory+of+everything&kgs=0&kls=0&stq=40

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=TOE+Theory+of+Everything&tab=www&go=homepage&x=39&y=11

 

http://search.lycos.co.uk/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=TOE+Theory+of+Everything&dom=co.uk&cat=web&matchmode=and&mtemp=main&etemp=error

 

http://msxml.webcrawler.com/info.wbcrwl/search/web/TOE%2BTheory%2Bof%2BEverything

 

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?p=TOE+Theory+of+Everything&y=i&ei=ISO-8859-1&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=

 

http://search.aol.co.uk/web?query=TOE+Theory+of+Everything&location=wholeweb&isinit=true&submit.x=16&submit.y=10