FROM THE VERY SMALL TO THE BIG BANG.
( Introduction & Chapter 1 history of science complete)
INTRODUCTION. – TIME AND SPACE.
What does it mean when we say that time passes by faster or more slowly? What are we really saying?
We are talking about the “rate”, T(r), at which time passes, which can also be thought of as a “frequency” similar to electromagnetic radiation. In this analogy, do not confuse long wave length, L, with higher frequency. Longer wave length means slower time rate or frequency which means the slower time passes. The greater the rate (or frequency) of time tics, the faster time passes, and visa versa. A more visual way to see it, imagine a timeline with the tics of a clock separating equal segments, L, of time. The slower time flows, the longer each time segment, L, will be, meaning the rate, T(r), will be less. The exact equation relating frequency to wave length is
L x T(r) = C, the constant speed of light
Now you ask, “How can we talk about the “fabric” of space when there is nothing there?”. It was Einstein who first proclaimed that space and gravity interact, claiming that gravity warps space. Now I accept this idea, although it could be that space shapes gravity. No matter, it seems obvious from this that there is something in space we cannot see, and therefore we can speak of space as if it were a “fabric” or maybe even a fluid.
.
This document is a pure mathematical viewpoint and reasoning in an attempt to better understand what science has been telling us today about quantum theory and cosmology .
IT IS A KEY THEME OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT ONE CANNOT TRAVEL AN IRRATIONAL OR A QUASI-IRRATIONAL DISTANCE WITHIN THE SPACIAL REALITY OF WHICH WE ARE CURRENTLY AWARE. HOWEVER, THAT FACT DOES NOT MEAN THERE ARE NO IRRATIONAL POINTS IN A SEPARATE SPACE OF WHICH WE ARE NOT AWARE. NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT A STATE OF IRRATIONALITY CANNOT TEMPORARILY EXIST WITHIN THE SPACIAL REALITY OF WHICH WE ARE AWARE. THE PERSPECTIVE TAKEN HEREIN IS THAT THERE EXISTS A RATIONAL SUBSPACE AND AN IRRATIONAL SUBSPACE, THE TWO COMPRISING ALL OF SPACE.,
The first chapter presents:
- the algebraic symbology I use,
- some key mathematical & scientific information & equations handed down to us,
- some pertinent scientific history.
Where the reader may skip over the first two sections of this chapter, using those sections only for quick reference, the reader should not skip anything after that lest he become lost in comprehending anything that has evolved in science since the days of Einstein.
The second chapter deals with the very small, ie, quantum theory, space and apparent nothingness.
The third chapter deals with the very large, ie, the BIG BANG . Both the very small and very large are described as contracting and expanding spheres, the commonality being found in the concept of a virtual singularity, ie, a “point”.
In this document, I question some of the following contemporary and conventional wisdom
- ZERO IS ALWAYS A RATIONAL NUMBER.
- NOTHING IS SMALLER THAN PLANKS CONSTANT.
3 THERE IS NO AETHER. - THERE IS NO CENTER TO THE UNIVERSE.
- THE UNIVERSE IS AN ISOLATED SYSTEM.
6..COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND NOISE IS STRETCHED OUT LIGHT FROM THE BIG BANG.
Only the first 5 do I seriously question.
.
.
CHAPTER 1.
SYMBOL LEGEND, ABOUT NUMBERS, & SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.
.
.
A. Before proceeding , here is a legend of the symbols I will use:
CONSTANTS:
C = the constant speed of light in a vacuum
G = Newton’s gravitational constant
PI = C(c)/D(d) = 3.14……
H = Plank’s constant = 6.62 x 10**(-34)
W = Wien’s Constant = .00294 degree-meters
K = unimportant constant
VARIABLES:
V(n) = Newton’s velocity
A(n) = Newton’s acceleration
M(n) = Newton’s inertial mass
F(n) = Newton’s force variable
G(n) = Newton’s force of gravity
T = time
D = linear longitudinal distance
T(t) = temperature absolute
T(r) = the rate of time = F(r)
F(r) = frequency or radiation frequency
S(r) spin rate
L(r) = wave length
A(r) = wave amplitude
S(r) = sinusoidal distance
R (r) = radius
D(r) = diameter
C(r) = circumference
E = work/energy
i = an integer quantum number
I may drop the subscript when the context in which the symbol appears is clear or if there is no other use of the capital letter..
In addition, the following equations are observed:
F(n) = M x A Newton’s equation
E = F(n) x d Newton’s definition of work/energy
E = i x H x F(r) Plank’s Law
E = M x C** Einsteins Law
L(r) x F(r) = C Maxwell equation
T(t) x L max = W Wien’s Temperature-Wave Length Law
where:
x = multiplication operator
/ = division operator
- = exponential operator
.
.
B. A WORD ABOUT NUMBERS.
Numbers give us a way of measuring things..
And the ability to measure requires the ability to divide that which is being measured into smaller, but equal, parts.
Another word for measuring is “QUANTIFICATION” which gives us a little clue into the meaning of “QUANTUM THEORY”. Numbers are also used to label.
There are different kinds of numbers, some of which can be divided into equal parts, and others not so. There are WHOLE NUMBERS aka INTEGERS, ODD & EVEN NUMBERS, PRIMARY NUMBERS, REAL NUMBERS, IMAGINARY NUMBERS, FRACTIONAL NUMBERS, etc…
But here I am focusing upon IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
.
- An IRRATIONAL NUMBER is one in which there is no end to non-repeating numbers to the right of the decimal point.
- PI is an irrational number.
- With the exception of zero, an irrational number multiplied times any rational or irrational number yields an irrational number. The same is true of division. The same is true of addition and subtraction, except when two irrational numbers whose numbers to the right of the decimal point yield a zero sum.
- There are at least four times more irrational numbers than rational numbers. This is because any mathematical operation ( + – x /) between a rational number and an irrational number always yields an irrational number.
- There being no distinct classification for numbers that have a repeating non-zero number sequence to the right of the decimal point, I call these QUASI IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. Example: 1/3 = .3333333….
.
.
C. BEFORE EINSTEIN
.
- THE CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT & ITS IMPACT UPON NEWTON’S KINETIC ENERGY.
For centuries before Einstein, scientists had narrowed down the speed of light, C. So you look at a star and wonder, “Is that light getting to you instantly, or does it require a little time to get to you?”. Both Newton and Galileo made unsuccessful attempts to measure the speed of light. But it was two astronomers, Romer in 1675 and Bradley in 1727, who were finally able to determine that the speed of light was finite, not infinite.About the same time, Newton made a very important distinction between average velocity and instantaneous velocity.
It was Einstein who determined that no matter how fast you are moving toward or receding away from a light source, you will always measure the speed of light to be exactly the same. My example #1 illustrates how this is so. It depicts a spring anchored at the ends, with a throttle lever attached to the middle. At the left end is you, the observer. At the right end is the light source you are moving toward or away from. In this example you are moving toward the light source. The lever is the equivalent of a throttle to advance your speed or retard it. The top part of the example shows your motion status before speeding up. The bottom shows the motion status after you have speeded up. More specifically it shows you the length of your ruler on the left and your time clock tics on the right. The distance between each wave peak on the left is the unit of measure for distance on your ruler. The peak of each wave on the right is a tic of your clock. You can see that as you move the level to the left thereby increasing your speed relative to the light source, your ruler shrinks and your time clock slows down. Thus, the ratio of distance traveled to tics of the clock is always the same. This is what Einstein uncovered in his Special Theory of Relativity.
Einstein went on to apply this new finding to Newton’s Work-Energy equations. Newton said that Work done equals the Energy put into it, W = E. Derived from his basic equation that says Force F(n) = Mass x Acceleration, F = MA, Newton said that Force applied over a distance is Work, W = F x D, and the Energy to apply that Force was E = MAD. Therefore, if W = E,
then FD = MAD. But A = V/T* = D/T. So MAD = M(D/T)D = M(D/T) = MV. Therefore, E = MV. which is KINETIC ENERGY.
But now here is the difference between Newton and Einstein.
Newton assumed that mass, M, was always constant and that velocity,V, was always variable. Einstein, recognizing that the speed of light was constant, simply plugged that constant C in for velocity V to give E = MC**. and said “no, mass is the variable and velocity is the constant. So much for that piece of history.
.
.
- PLANK’S LAW AND A NEW FOUND ENERGY.
.
Max Plank was a brilliant dedicated scientist in the late 1800s. In his study of HEAT ENERGY (which is basically kinetic energy of atoms hitting each other like friction), he made a very important empirical finding establishing a relationship between energy and radiant frequency. It is called
PLANKS LAW expressed as E = H x F(r),
where E is energy, F(r) is frequency and H is Planks constant
So now we have two equations for energy..
When Newton was talking about “energy”, he was talking about KINETIC ENERGY. This appears to be what Einstein was talking about when he first broached the subject of light.
Kinetic energy is the energy imparted when one piece of matter hits another one, so it is deeply connected to mass and the speed of mass.
But Max Plank, in his study of heat energy (which is basically kinetic energy of atoms hitting each other like friction), uncovered the RADIANT ENERGY of electromagnetic waves, especially light waves.
To restate his find in quantum theory terms,
E = i x H x F,
where E is energy & F is frequency & i = 1 quantum.
But where is the force to create radiant energy?
We all can well understand the energy imparted when one thing traveling linearly hits another. But if there is no mass involved, then where is the force of this invisible wave? The answer is that the force is not in the same linear direction of travel. The force is orthogonal to the direction of travel. More specifically it is the amplitude of the wave. The greater (or higher) the amplitude, the greater the force, and hence, the greater the energy. So where does Plank’s Law say anything about amplitude? It does not. But what it does say is that the higher the frequency, then the higher the energy. If you have the same amplitude across several different frequencies hitting you, the one you will feel the most is the highest of those frequencies, because you are getting hit more times than the other lower frequencies.
So to recap, we now recognize two different types of energy, kinetic energy and radiant energy. O)f course there are others, but that is not our concern here.
.
- THE DUAL NATURE OF LIGHT. WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY.
For centuries, scientist had at some times considered light to be a particle (now called a photon), while at other times considered it to be an electromagnetic wave. Newton and Huygens in the 17th century were among the first to really study light. Newton supported the particle idea and Huygens supported the wave idea.
Huygens said that light is a wave that generates “wavelets” at each point in space along the way which in turn generate more subsequent wavelets. Thus light is propagated like ball colliding with other balls on a pool table, only Huygen’s analogy was the wave action of water. Indeed there appears to be a lot of truth in his viewpoint which appear in one of my attached pictures.Then early in the 19th century, Young demonstrated his Double Slit experiment that emphasized the wave idea even further. Later in that century, in pursuit of establishing the wave theory, two scientist, Michelson and Morley, posited that space was comprised of Aether particles through which light was propagated as a wave, In other words, space was like an ocean.They reasoned that the speed of the earth through it could be determined like a rowboat trying to cross a river. The experiment failed, resulting in the dismissal of there being any such thing as an Aether, not to mention the resulting question of light being a wave.
What has since evolved is a very complicated picture of the photon being both a particle and a wave. This being the case, let me try to draw a simple straight forward analogy of this duality.
Referring to my example #2, envision a wheel of your car. This is representative of a photon. Imagine a huge polarized bar magnet stuck perfectly to the wheel across its diameter from one edge, through the center, and to the other edge of the wheel. Now, before you begin to drive it, assume the car is up on blocks lifting the wheels off the ground. You start the engine, engage the wheels, step on the gas and observe the revolutions per minute, rpms. For this example, we assume that the rpms is the same as the rate at which the wheel spins and is the SPIN FREQUENCY, S(r). The spin frequency produces the periodic motion of the magnet’s poles which generate an oscillating electromagnetic field of radiation having a frequency of F(r). So the spin rate, S(r), and the frequency, F(r), are one and the same. The resulting radiated wavelength, L, is the same as the circumference, C(r), of the wheel. And the wave’s amplitude, A, is the radius, R, of the wheel. Meanwhile, the path of the magnet’s north pole is a circle relative to both the ground and the center of the wheel. In short, what we have here is an electromagnetic wave of frequency F(r) and wavelength L that travels at the speed of light C.
Now you lower the car to the ground and begin to drive it at the same revolutions per minute as before Relative to the car, the magnet is still generating the same electromagnetic radiation and has the same frequency and wave length and amplitude as before. And the path of the magnet’s north pole motion relative to the center of the wheel is still a circle. But now we ask ‘WHAT IS THE PATH OF THE MAGNET’S NORTH POLE MOTION RELATIVE TO AN OBSERVER ON THE GROUND AS THE CAR IS MOVING LONGITUDINALLY? THE ANSWER IS “A SIGN WAVE” WHICH STILL HAS THE SAME AMPLITUDE. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS DIFFERENT WITH REGARDS TO FREQUENCY AND WAVELENGTH OF THE GENERATED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD. .
Going a little further, let’s look at what the electromagnetic radiation looks like to our observer standing still in front of your car as you drive towards him. To such an observer, the fact of your velocity towards him compresses the peak-to-peak wavelength of the generated electromagnetic wave. This means a shorter wavelength, which in turn means higher frequency. Were the observer standing behind your car, the opposite would be true. The wavelength would get longer and the frequency would be less. This is called Doppler Frequency Shifting
To this point, our analogy may not be complete, the reason being that the wavelength of the generated electromagnetic wave was in sync with the linear longitudinal distance traveled by 1 complete revolution of the wheel. Suppose the spinning magnet is not attached to the wheel, but instead is inside the car and not spinning at the same rate as the car’s wheels.
No matter, the same Doppler Frequency Shift will occur, maybe not the same as before, but it will still occur as long as your car is moving. It is the same type of Doppler Frequency Shift as when you hear a train whistle go from a high pitch to a low pitch as it passes by you. So now we see that there can be a distinct difference between the actual periodic spin speed, ie, frequency, and the observed frequency depending upon the relative motion between the electromagnetic wave source and the observer.
This analogy of a photon may not be exactly correct. Certainly it does not cover all of the intricacies of light, especially Huygens view that light appears to replicate and distribute itself at every point in space. Although Huygens did not support the particle view, his theory seems to be liken to a cue ball hitting a racked up set of balls on a pool table. No matter, I hope this presents at least some idea of how the wave-particle duality idea works.
.
.
- RECAPPING THE ATTRIBUTES OF LIGHT.
So up to here we have talked about two pertinent aspects of light,
a. its constant longitudinal speed, C, as if it were a particle of matter,
and
b. the fact that it is an oscillating electromagnetic field or wave.
Most anybody can understand part a. But part b should be elaborated upon a little bit without going into all of the details of electromagnetic theory. Sufficia to say, that a magnet has a force field around it that can cause electrons to accelerate or decelerate from their state of motion when the magnet is moved relative to the electrons. Conversely, a linear flow of electrons can generate a magnetic field relative to to the direction of electron flow. The dispersion of the force of the generated magnetic field is circular rather like a pipe enclosing the linear flow of electrons. In other words, a magnetic force that creates “spin” is created. If the linear flow of the electrons is alternated back and forth as in alternating current, then the resulting circular magnetic forces alternate accordingly and create a magnetic wave. This is at the heart of electromagnetic wave generation.
Returning to some other attributes of light,
light radiates outward from its source in linear paths. Its strength per area diminishes as it fans out. A light bean can be reflected or absorbed by matter. It can be refracted as it passes through transparent matter It can be diffused as it passes by the edge of matter.. Each virgin beam of light (or light ray) is composed of transverse waves in all directions.This means looking straight on at the beam you are confronted with waves moving in all directions, not just up-&-down or side-to-side. Polarization is a way of filtering out all the transverse waves except those waves oscillating in just one direction. A laser is a way of amplifying light.
.
- CAN ANYTHING EXIST WITHOUT MASS?
First let us be clear in our understanding of “mass”. “Mass” is “inertia”, ie, the resistance to any forces being applied to “mass”. It is not weight. In addition, “mass” can be thought of as the storehouse of energy. In a similar manner, “mass” might also be a storehouse for gravity. In addition, there is a distinction made between an “at rest” mass and a mass “in motion”. Depending upon the speed of a ball that hits you, the faster ball certainly seems to have more mass.
At first, it would seem the answer to our question is “no”. Intuition and our equations tell us “no”. We tend to think of a particle as being a piece of matter that occupies points in space and has mass. But who is to say that our piece of matter does not have holes in it, leaving spacial points to be unoccupied by matter.
But quantum theory wants to tell us “yes, something can exist without mass”. Science is telling us that the photon is a BOSON and has no mass, but has an energy level of
i x H x F(r) with i = Spin = 1 quantum.
By comparison, the mass of an electron is 9.109 x 10(-31)kg and its max speed is about 1% of the speed of light. This latter statement of the massless photon does appear to totally contradict E= M x C = i x H x F(r).
This may be due to the fact that the energy of a single photon is so low that its mass is negligible.The mean frequency of light is 600 trillion hertz which is
600,000,000,000 or 6 x 10(11). . If we multiply that times Planks Constant, 6.62 x 10(-34), we get E = 40 x 10(-24) . And if me divide that number by C 8.99 x 10(-16), we get M = 320 x 10(-40) which is much, much smaller than an electron.
It takes 3.2 x 10**(18) photons to generate 1 joule of energy. 1 joule = .000000239 calories, so you can see there is very little energy in a photon. To arrive at more meaningful measurement results, scientists have lumped many, many photons in packets called quantums and that serve as a unit of measure.
Yet another reason for saying the photon is massless is that it is seen impossible for a mass to attain the speed of light. So if a photon had any mass at all, it would not be able to travel the speed of light.
In addition, quantum theory has come up with the SUPER POSITION PRINCIPLE which says if there are two possible states, A & B, for something, then it is possible for any combination of aA + bB to exist. So this could imply that the answer to our question is “yes”.
.
- IS THE PHOTON THE BASIC ELEMENT OF ALL SPACE?
.At this point, we might speculate that every point in space is a massless photon. “But wait”, you say. “Then would not all of spacetime be lighted up?”. Answer – “Not if the photon is not spinning”. “But,” you say. “Is a photon affected by gravity/”. Answer – “Yes it is”. It has been proven that gravity does bend light rays.
And what about the long-ago AETHER concept dismissed by the Michelson/Morley experiment.
Sufifcia to say, if the massless photon is the particle of spacetime, then it would offer no resistance to the earth flowing through it. In other words, the analogy of a boat crossing a flowing river would be incorrect.
Going back to Huygen’s wave theory and comparing it to balls on a pool table, might not those balls on the pool table be representative of photons at rest in each point of spacetime?
Nevertheless, it is too early to draw this conclusion. There are many other things to consider.
.
.
- IS THERE A SMALLEST DISTANCE?
.It is said that the smallest length of distance is PLANKS CONSTANT H which is 6.62 x 10(-34) and that nothing can exists that is smaller than this. If we substitute MC(2) for energy and C/£ for frequency, where M is mass, C is the speed of light, & £ is wave length, then we can come up with
M£ = 2/3 x 10**(-26).
What is important here is that mass and wave length are inversely proportional to each other.
THEREFORE, IF A POINT IN SPACE HAS NO MASS, THEN ITS WAVELENGTH IS AN INFINITE STRAIGHT LINE WHOSE FREQUENCY IS C/infinity, AKA ZERO.
So what is the reasoning behind saying that nothing can be smaller than PLANKS CONSTANT? Is this seemingly just another arbitrary restriction similar to saying that 0 must only be rational number, and not irrational?
.
.
D. CATCHING UP WITH EINSTEIN.
Einstein first came out with his SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY which dealt with two reference systems in motion at a constant speed relative to each other. His findings here included the further study of light which gave us his famous equation, E = MC**. He subsequently came out with his theory of GENERAL RELATIVITY which dealt with two reference systems in variable motions relative to each other, meaning they accelerated and or decelerated relative to each other, which in turn brought into play the consideration of gravity.
Einstein’s findings, along with those of his contemporary scientists, eventually gave us the theory of the atom and quantum theory. I should mention here that quantum theory appears to be an attempt to find the smallest practical unit of measure with respect to describing and measuring atomic and subatomic particles and energies.The word “QUANTA” is singular and refers to a single package constituting a unit of measure of vary small particles, like photons and electrons, or packets of energy levels. The word “QUANTUM” is plural and expresses n number of quanta, where n can only be an integer. which is not irrational..
.
1 The IMPACT OF VELOCITY, V, UPON TIME.
Einstein, in his first studies of light, proclaimed that, “THE FASTER ONE TRAVELS, THE SLOWER THE RATE OF TIME AND VISA VERSA. So here we see VELOCITY, V, aka SPEED BASED UPON TIME AND DISTANCE, changing the rate at which time passes.. In other words, the greater the speed, V, the less the rate at which time, T(r), passes and visa versa. It would seem as if V & T(r) are inversely proportional to some extent & can be expressed mathematically as:
V x T(r) = K (a fixed constant.)
But T(r) = C / L, where
C = the speed of light
L = the wave length of time,
ie, the distance between tics of the clock.
Therefore, V / L = K / C
In addition to this, Einstein went on to say, “THE FASTER ONE TRAVELS, THE MORE MASS HE GAINS.”. We will remember this when we get to gravity.
.
- THE INCLUSION OF TIME AS A DIMENSION & ITS GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION.
In his Special Theory Of Relativity, Einstein addressed the relativistic issues of pure motion and time, the result being his recognition of time as a 4th dimension. But apparently he was somewhat remiss in his depicting graphical reference system of how space and time could could be represented. He relied upon another mathematician, Minkowski. One of the pictures attached here is that of Minkowski’s graphical concept of space-time which most physicists agree upon. Part of the trick in understanding it is to realize that distance can be represented as time ASSUMING THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS THE UNIT OF MEASURE ALONG THE TIME AXIS. So there is very little difference from the old 3-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system in that regard. But in addition Minkowski added what is called a LIGHT CONE. Now I do not pretend to know what this light-cone purports to represent, but my best guess is that it is representative of the dispersion of light over time. But do not bet on it.
Speaking of reference systems, Einstein played with Non-Euclidian reference systems, envisioning manifolds and Gaussian Field representations. He did so making a distinction between an INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM wherein the reference system is considered to be at absolute rest as opposed to a separate NON-INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM which is moving with respect to an inertial reference system. This is so, because every person has their own unique frame of reference that move with respect to others.
Anyway let’s move onward to the more interesting concepts of gravity which Einstein incorporated in his General Theory Of Relativity.
.
- The IMPACT OF GRAVITY, G UPON TIME.
First, it is said that gravity travels at the speed of light, no slower and no faster. Secondly, in addition to gravity impacting the shape of space, it has also been proven that gravity has its effects upon time. The closer one is to the source of gravity, THE SLOWER TIME PASSES by. The farther away you are from the center of gravity, THE FASTER TIME PASSES.
It would seem as if G & T(r) are inversely proportional to some extent. In other words, the greater the gravity, the less the rate at which time passes and visa versa. This might be represented by the equation. Thus, we might expand our previous equation to include gravity expressed as
V x G x T(r) = K (a fixed constant.)
or
(V x G) / L = K / C
Remembering Einstein said, “THE FASTER ONE TRAVELS, THE MORE MASS HE GAINS.”, we can speculate that it may not be the increase of velocity that slows time directly. It may be that the increase in mass resulting from higher speed produces increased gravity that actually slows time. In this case we could simply omit V from our equation. But for now we will leave it in.
Now this equation may or may not be true, but it does help to understand the inverse relationships between TIME, GRAVITY, and SPEED. We know that G, gravity, is relative to mass. We know that V, velocity is relative to the distance between points in space and time. But we still do not know what the variable TIME is relative to.
.
- MORE ABOUT GRAVITY “WARPING” SPACE.
Well before Einstein, it was Newton who first introduced the idea that two separate pieces of matter attracted each other via a direct force which he could compute. But when Einstein came along, the picture was changed from a direct force to an indirect force whereby spacetime served as an intermediary. Two pieces of matter in close proximity would come together as a result of their separate respective stretching or squeezing of spacetime and not as the result of a direct force between them.
Einstein finally came up with his equation of General Relativity,
G(uv)=(8pi G/C****)T(uv).
Where: G = Newtons Gravitational Constant
C = The Speed Of Light
pi = the usual irrational constant.
T(uv) = an energy-momentum tensor.
This involves mass, M, & velocity, V.
G(uv) = a curvature tensor.
This includes TIME ..
God only knows what this is,
but let me try to explain as I have heard.
The left side, G(uv), says that space-time is shaped by the right side which represents the distribution of matter. In other words, space-time is malleable, not some unknown infinity.
This may be all fine and dandy, but we need to know, “What is a tensor”?”. In mathematics, a tensor is an algebraic object that describes a linear mapping from one set of algebraic objects to another. Objects that tensors may map between include, but are not limited to, vectors and scalars, and, recursively, even other tensors. Tensors are inherently related to vector spaces and their dual spaces, and can take several different forms – for example: a scalar, a vector, a dual vector at a point, or a multi-linear map between vector spaces. Euclidean vectors and scalars (which are often used in elementary physics and engineering applications where general relativity is irrelevant) are the simplest tensors.[1] While tensors are defined independent of any basis, the literature on physics often refers to them by their components in a basis related to a particular coordinate system. The third picture shown here is a diagram of a curvature tensor, but please do not ask me to explain it.
Even given all of this information, how in the world are we suppose to visualize it all.
Einstein said that gravity “warps” space-time. The 2nd attached picture is what has traditionally been known as the Trampoline example which is really pathetic. It is suppose to illustrate how a piece of material like earth causes a “gravity well” distortion in spacetime into which another piece of material (not shown) can fall. But this is really a mickey-mouse example, because it still relies upon there being a gravity force to pull the second piece of material down into its web. In addition to that, one might view this picture as the earth pushing spacetime away.
So just exactly what Einstein meant by “warping” space time is totally unclear. Did he mean to imply a pushing away force or a pulling force, because certainly it must be one of the two. Given the discovery of black holes, which Einstein initially uncovered, he must have meant “warping” as the result of a pulling force. But Einstein went a little further and claimed that gravity was a property of space-time. If this is the case, then it must be that every spacial point must be the source of a quantum gravity force, wherein matter enhances the attraction of spacial points like a piece of meat attracting flies.
At this point, I would like to compare Einstein’s equation to what we previously came up with, ie, (V x G) / L = K / C.
Restating the equation, we have
L x K / C = V x G.
So now we can see the commonality between our equation and Einstein’s equation on both the left and ride sides. We don’t really care about what our arbitrary K / C is. All that counts is that the pertinent factors of time gravity and velocity are correct in their relationship to each other. And of course, Einstein’s equation is more complete and correct.
.
- VISUALIZING GRAVITY WARPING SPACE.
I find the typical Trampoline Picture of gravity warping space to be somewhat unacceptable in that it leads us to believe gravity pushes spacetime away. It would be better if the center of the earth were shown lower at the apex depicted. So let’s see if we can come up with a more realistic picture.
If you will, imagine 2 bicycles wheels on a bike as in my example #3. The spokes on the wheels represent the force of gravity emanating radially outward from the center of each wheel where the respective masses are located. Einstein’s claim is that the spacetime between the wheels is” warped” by the force of each wheel’s gravity. So now, let’s ask some questions.
a. WHICH DIRECTION IS FORCE OF GRAVITY OF EACH WHEEL (along the spokes of the wheel) ACTING RELATIVE TO THE WHEEL ON ITS OWN.? Either each wheel is pushing outward away from its center or pulling inward toward its center. This may sound like a stupid question, but Trampoline picture indicates a pushing rather than a pulling.
If the force of gravity were pushing away, then it would stand to reason that all matter would be highly compressed leaving no room for electrons to fly around the atom’s nucleus. So obviously, the force of gravity must be a “pulling” force, which we all knew anyway. So gravity is an “attractive” force, not a “repelling” force.
b. UPON WHAT IS THE FORCE OF GRAVITY ACTING EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY? Obviously, the force of gravity acts upon two physical bodies, (ie, matter having mass). But Einstein claims that the resulting action is an indirect result of gravity “warping” spacetime. So how can this be? Again, the impact upon spacetime cannot be a “pushing” aside force, because if this were the case, the two bodies would avoid each other. So the two forces of gravity must be “pulling” upon spacetime. This makes it a tug-of-war upon spacetime between the two bodies. This means that spacetime itself must have some particle-like or quantum characteristic.BUT WHAT ?????
.
.
CHAPTER 2.
THE FABRIC OF SPACE, BLACK HOLES, AND THE ESSENCE OF TIME
.
A. PERCEPTION.
- IRRATIONAL NUMBERS.
An irrational (or quasi irrational) number is a very unique in that it cannot be subdivided any further into equal parts.So in a certain sense, it has its own unique identity. No matter, it does not qualify as a very basic unit of measure, because any rational multiples of it result in constructions of the unmeasurable. Matter, being a construction of mass. cannot exist in irrational space. But an electromagnetic wave can and must partially exist in in irrational space, because it is based upon a periodic spin,which requires the use of the irrational constant, PI, in computing wavelength which too is irrational..
- LET’S TALK ABOUT ZERO.
An irrational number is one which has no ending or repeating pattern after the decimal point. An irrational multiplied by an irrational number may or may not yield a rational number. But an irrational number multiplied by any rational number yields another irrational number, EXCEPT FOR “0” WHICH IS DEFINED TO BE A RATIONAL INTEGER. So quite obviously we have an exception that creates a contradiction when it comes to the number zero.
.
- FURTHER INVESTIGATION, COLLAPSING SPHERES.
Now consider the case of a virtual circle or sphere collapsing upon its center point.
The definition of a circle or sphere is the locus of points equidistant from a point in space. In a 3D Cartesian reference system, a sphere is defined by R2 = x2 + y2 + z2., where R is the radius and x,y,z are the coordinates in space. It should be obvious that if R is 0, then x, y, & z are all 0. So far so good.
But another way of defining a sphere is by the rotation of a circle about an axis. And as we all know, C = 2R x PI, where R is the radius of a rational distance & C is the circumference, or the locus of points around the center point of the circle or sphere.
.
- CONSISTENCY OF REASONING.
BUT PI IS IRRATIONAL, WHICH MEANS THAT C MUST BE IRRATIONAL, WHICH IN TURN MEANS THE LOCUS OF SOME OF THE POINTS EQUIDISTANT FROM THE CENTER ARE IRRATIONAL, WHILE OTHERS MAY BE RATIONAL. (Note: When z = 0 & x = 4 & y =3,; R = 5, all being rational points.) NOW WHEN R BECOMES ZERO (which we assume initially to be rational), THE IRRATIONAL POINTS WHICH WERE IN THE CIRCUMFERENCE ALL CONVERGE UPON WHAT WAS THE RATIONAL CENTER POINT AND MERGE INTO THAT CENTER POINT, THEREBY FORMING A POINT WHICH IS BOTH RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE THE RADIUS HAS BECOME ZERO, THEN THOSE IRRATIONAL POINTS THAT FORMED THE CIRCUMFERENCE SIMPLY DISAPPEAR. IT IS MORE CONSISTENT TO VIEW THEM AS OVERLAYING THE RATIONAL CENTER POINT AND MERGING WITH THAT CENTER POINT. THIS IN TURN MEANS THAT ZERO MUST BE BOTH RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL AT THE SAME TIME, NOT SIMPLY ONE OR THE OTHER. SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE IS TO APPLY THE SUPER POSITION PRINCIPLE. FURTHERMORE, ALL POINTS IN SPACE MUST BE BOTH RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL. BUT HOW CAN THIS BE? THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THAT EACH POINT IN SPACE OSCILLATES BETWEEN THE RATIONAL STATE AND THE IRRATIONAL STATE.
.
- FURTHER CONJECTURE.
AT THIS POINT WE NOW MUST ASK, “WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS OSCILLATION OF A POINT IN SPACE ?”. THERE ARE THESE POSSIBILITIES
a. EACH POINT IN SPACE SIMPLY CHANGES ITS “COLOR” FROM RATIONAL TO IRRATIONAL AND BACK AGAIN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS SIMPLY REPETITIVELY EXPOSING TWO FACES OF THE SAME COIN.
b. EACH POINT IN SPACE HAS A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM TO VIBRATE BETWEEN THE RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL, BEING CONSTRAINED BY AN INFINITESIMAL IRRATIONAL DISTANCE.
c. EACH POINT IN SPACE EXPANDS AND CONTRACTS ITS RADIUS BETWEEN RATIONAL 0 AND THE SMALLEST IRRATIONAL DISTANCE, BEING CONSTRAINED BY THE INFINITESIMAL IRRATIONAL DISTANCE.
d. HOWEVER IN OBSERVING PARTICLE-WAVE DUALITY, CURRENT DAY QUANTUM PHYSICS HAS COME TO REGARD THE IDEA THAT A QUANTUM FORCE FIELD CAN BE SOMEWHAT INDEPENDENT OF MATTER AND OCCUPY SPACE WITHOUT IT HAVING A MASS. IT WAS THE PHOTON THAT FIRST GAVE RISE TO THIS IDEA, BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATES THE PROPERTIES OF BEING A REAL MATERIAL PARTICLE WITH MASS AND
BEING A MASSLESS ENERGY WAVE. THIS IS KNOWN AS PARTICLE-WAVE DUALITY. SUCH BEING THE CASE, IT IS NOT UNTHINKABLE TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT OUR SPACIAL POINT COULD OSCILLATE BETWEEN BEING A MASSLESS FIELD AND A REAL PARTICLE HAVING MASS. IN OTHER WORDS, EACH POINT IN SPACE COULD BE WHAT i WOULD CALL A NOW-YOU-SEE-IT/NOW-YOU-DONT PARTICLE, AKA, A “NUCINUD” ENTITY, PROBABLY ALSO KNOW AS THE ELUSIVE GRAVITON PARTICLE.
e. If the preceding does hold water and IF THE OSCILLATIONS OF ALL POINTS ARE IN SYNC WITH EACH OTHER VIA SOME INTERCONNECTING LINKAGE BETWEEN POINTS (LIKE GRAVITY) , then it is reasonable to say that the fabric of all space is comprised of two subspaces, ie, the rational subspace and the irrational subspace. Based on this idea, we might even conjecture that all of space flips back and forth between the two subspaces, thereby creating a motion picture reality. (Note: Refer to the attached Minkowski graph and envision the x-y plane as progressing through time along the time axis in a flip-flop fashion between the rational an irrational.)
However, it may be that the oscillations of all points are asynchronous, ie, not in sync. And if this is true, then the concept of a synchronous and continuous time across all of space is ka-put, as well as the idea of there being any continuity across space-time.
.
- RECAP – THE “NUCINUD” PARTICLE-POINT.
This writing has theorized the existence of a
NOW-YOU-SEE-IT-NOW-YOU-DONT (aka NUCINUD) PARTICLE-POINT of which all of space is composed.
1)The particle-point is said to oscillate in size from zero to some infinitesimal size. Furthermore, given the current day thinking that treats a massless force field (like a photon) as a real entity, it is conceivable that our nucinud particle-point could oscillate between being a massless force field and being a real particle with mass. This conforms to Einstein and quantum theory recognizing a force field as being independent of matter.
2)The particle-point is the source of gravity (a directional force field) and is enticed by matter to collect inside matter like a bunch of flies being attracted to dead meat. Because of its attraction to other points like itself, it may merge with those other points, thereby increasing the force of its own gravity. And because of its attraction to other particle-points like itself, any motion of the particle-point causes its domain and the domain of neighboring particle- points to be stretched. Furthermore, the particle-point’s quantum gravity links it with its adjacent particle-points, thereby providing a linkage between all such particle-points and assuring a synchronous continuity of all space-time.
This conforms to Einstein declaring gravity to be a property of space-time.
3) The particle-point’s oscillation period is slowed by the increased presence of its own gravity. This conforms to the observation that gravity slows down time.
4) In addition, there may be a force field that is orthogonal to the gravity force field in a relationship similar to the relationship of electricity to magnetism.
.
- BLACK HOLES.
From the previous discussion about a collapsing virtual sphere, it should be obvious that this is exactly a description of matter collapsing into a black hole, the only difference being we have now added the presence of matter which exhibits the property of gravity.
If we consider matter to be composed of real rational points in space, then the radius of a black hole must be real, but its circumference, or EVENT HORIZON, must be irrational points in space. Either this or visa versa. No matter, this should give us some insight into the nature of space and matter at the quantum level, where current thought is focused upon multi-dimensionality, particle and string theory.
As a side note black holes having an extremely large mass are known to emit low frequency gravity waves, near sound, when they merge with another black hole. This is not to say that they do not also emit other very high frequency radiation, like gamma and x-rays.
.
.
B. POSTMORTEM.
.
1.. MY APOLOGY.
In association with QUANTUM THEORY, there appears to be a popular belief that there exists the smallest size that anything can exist. Quite obviously, in bringing up and applying IRRATIONAL numbers in my depiction of points in space, I have possibly created a schism about what the very smallest size that a thing can be. And quite obviously, I have diverted from current thinking of there being an absolute smallest particle size to thinking that the very smallest particle can completely disappear to zero size and reappear. In other words, we have a “NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T” , aka NUCINUD, PARTICLE/SPACIAL-POINT. This may conflict with the PLANK CONSTANT idea of there being an absolute smallest size that never goes to zero.
If what I am saying is true, there remains a question as to the exact nature of time. That question is, ” Is it not possible that each somewhat autonomous particle/point of space, by virtue of its oscillating size is somehow linked to its neighbors via an oscillating minute wave it produces?”. And is it not then possible that the oscillations of all spacial-points be in sync with each other, thus producing the over all effect of time?”. “Can each such a spacial point not be the generator of some isotropic radiation?”.
.
- A QUESTION OF UNIFORMITY BETWEEN GRAVITY & ELECTROMAGNETICS.
In electromagnetics, there are two interwoven but distinct forces, ie, electrical and magnetic. Could be there is a companion force orthogonal to gravity yet to be discovered?
Perhaps, time is orthogonal to gravity.
.
- A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE IS HELD IN CHECK BY THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE.
If the two forces are orthogonal to each other as with electro-magetics, then it may be that the weak nuclear force whose direction is a push outward is held in by an encircling strong nuclear force.
..
- REBUTTLEMENTS:
a. POINTS IN SPACE HAVE NO PROPERTIES LIKE RATIONALITY OR IRRATIONALITY. THE DEFINITION OF A STRAIGHT LINE IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS, A & B. ONLY DISTANCE AND/OR TIME CAN BE IRRATIONAL.
ANSWER: Assume you have a “straight” line between points A & B, but the distance is “irrational”. If the distance is a “straight” line, then you can never get exactly from point A to point B, because you will either fall short of point B or skip over it claiming to hit point B. So obviously something is amiss.
The possible explanation for this is that something diverted your trip very slightly, causing you not to go in a “straight” line as you presumed. What could that be? Either:
1). You “locus” of points took you slightly off course through an intermediate “irrational point,
or
2). Some mysterious force “bent” your path along the way.
Now consider the distance between A & B as shrinking almost to zero, but it is still irrational. Either that irrational intermediate point is still there or that mysterious force is still there. And as we collapse that distance to zero, there is no reason to believe that anything has changed. Thus, the point must take on the properties of what was exterior to it.
No photo description available.
No photo description available.
.
.
CHAPTER 3.
THE BIG BANG.
.
I. CURRENT UNDERSTANDING.
As a result of both scientific and technological advancement over the last century, it has become pretty clear that our universe began with a BIG BANG. Whether it was caused by a collision of some preexisting entities or caused by the immediate appearance out of nowhere of a singularity. ie a “POINT” may be a concern, but it should be obvious that were it a collision of preexisting entities, then the universe must have existed before the collision, which leads one to question how those entities came about. Therefore, the more reasonable viewpoint is to regard it as starting from a singularity, thereby eliminating the endless search for a beginning.
This BIG BANG CREATION THEORY tells us that both space, time and matter were all created immediately 13.8 billion years ago from a singularity that erupted into an explosion, with matter evolving from a super-heated plasma, that turned into the basic particles of the atom as it cooled, that turned into hydrogen and helium atoms, that turned into stars, which in turn created the heavier elements we know of today. It also tells us that light was created which was everywhere all at once and which ultimately turned into microwaves and can be found today as CMB, COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND noise that still travel everywhere in the universe.
.
II. QUESTIONS:
.
A. SOME SCIENTIST ARGUE THAT THE UNIVERSE IS A
“ISOLATED SYSTEM”.
The word, “SYSTEM”, implies some degree of enclosure, and therefore an entity that can be somewhat described. The word “DESCRIBE” also implies an enclosure since the syllable “SCRIBE” means to circumnavigate or enclose.
To point out the differences in system types, science recognizes 3 kinds of systems:
- “ISOLATED” where neither energy or matter can escape.
An “isolated” system is one completely enclosed an
sealed off. The 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
pertains to this kind of system. So it may be that some
scientists opt for this type of universe to preserve that
law. - “CLOSED” where energy can escape, but not matter.
In other words, there is a small exit. - “OPENED” where both energy and matter can escape.
This latter type of system should be self-evident.
At this point let us consider some possible semmetrical enclosures of the universe. We will exclude the unsemmetrical, because they could be like fractals and just too difficult to apply simple math.
So considering only the symmetrical, we have only four possibilities
- A TETRAHEDRON
- A CUBE
- A DODECAHEDRON.
- A SPHERE.
So which of these would be the most realistic to enclose our universe? Certainly not the first three, because it is most unlikely that our universe would have sharp edges as required by a polyhedron. That leaves us with a sphere.
So let’s go back and see if a sphere really is representative of our universe being an isolated system. If the universe is indeed “isolated” and spherical , then there must be a discernable boundary at a rational distance from its center. And if the universe is spherical, then its surface must contain some irrational points as we saw previously in our discussion of a point. This must mean our sphere has holes in it, making it impossible to be an isolated enclosed system.
Of course it can be argued that the universe is not a perfect sphere. But if that is true, then how do you account for what must have been the typical symmetrical radiation pattern of
a shock wave or dispersion of what-ever that is typical of an explosion?
So I would like to know what proof these scientist have of the universe being an isolated system? Have they in fact ventured to the outer boundaries and found all of the doors shut.? Or are they just being lazy, arrogant and closed minded?
Of course, isolation of variables is essential to understanding the cause and effect of things. But to claim that the Universe is always an isolated entity is beyond all reason. There is no such thing as always or never. Gates open and gates close, and we know not when, where, and/or by what means or who.
.
B. WHAT THIS, NO CENTER TO THE UNIVERSE?
Scientists are telling us per Google,
“There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere.”
Apparently scientists do not consider the original spot where the Big Bang started as part of the universe. This could only mean that the universe is sandwiched in between two concentric spheres, assuming a symmetrical explosion. If the explosion was non-semmetrical, then the universe would still be sandwiched in between an outer layer and an inner layer, assuming the point of the explosion was surrounded by all the debris which is not unreasonable. But then again, one might conjecture the universe as being a smoke ring blown through a tiny hole. One could almost imagine God smoking a pipe and blowing a smoke ring. He may be even blowing more than one smoke ring, thereby creating multi-verses No matter, there must be a center point of origin and regardless of whether or not scientist include it as part of the universe.
.
C. LOOKING INTO THE DISTANT PAST.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE ARE LOOKING FARTHER BACK INTO TIME AS WE PEER DEEPER INTO SPACE?
We must begin with the fact that there is nothing that can travel faster than light. And because of the vast distances between galaxies, it can take millions of light years for the light from a far distant galaxy to reach our galaxy. This means that an immense amount of time has past by the time we see the light, which means we are looking at history.
With the advent of space travel, our imaginations can go wild with the idea of visiting distant galaxies. Yet science tells us that the deeper we peer into space, then the farther back in time we go. But to be more precise, the deeper we look into space, we see light (or electromagnetic radiation) emitted long, long ago. So this raises the question, “If what we are seeing now actually occurred millions of years ago, then how do we know those objects are still there?” If in truth they are not presently there, then is there really any point in trying to converse with them, let alone attempt to travel to them? This not to say we should not even bother to be aware and study these past events. But they need to be recognized as historical events long past that should not necessarily effect our current day presence.
For an observer to say, “I just saw new stars being born” is not necessarily correct. It is more honest to say “I have seen stars that were born x years ago”. To him I would say “If you are going to travel to some distant star, don’t be surprised if it is gone before you get there.
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe appears to be expanding due to the “Doppler Red Shift” he observed of light coming from very distant stars.. From that we have concluded that the more distant starts are “accelerating” away, leading us to theorize that the universe is expanding as a whole attributed to the existence ‘dark energy”.
But there is something troubling about this. WHAT IS THE POINT THEY ARE EXPANDING FROM? WHERE IS THE CENTER POINT OF THE EXPLOSION? CAN WE NOT SEE LIGHT FROM DISTANT GALAXIES DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM US ON THE OTHER SIDE? WHAT IF THOSE MORE DISTANT STARS ARE NOT RECEDING AWAY FROM US LINEARLY, BUT ARE ACTUALLY CIRCULATING AROUND THE EDGES OF THE UNIVERSE?” IT WOULD STILL BE POSSIBLE TO OBSERVE A RED SHIFT AT THE RIGHT TIMES RELATIVE TO THE POSITION OF THE EARTH? These very simple questions remain to be answered by science, not some arbitrary statements of there being no center or that the universe is an isolated system. If you don’t know, then say you don’t know.
.
.
.
..
END OF STORY