RELATIVITY AND ALL THAThttp://www.ravenecho.com/static/135/f6c2ed5d63c3383a4a9ebca494503437.jpg
At the beginning of the last century physics was in the process of constructing two great pillars of knowledge. There was the pillar of Relativity and of all things large, and the pillar of Quantum Mechanics and the science of the very small. The central Holy Grail of the 20th century was to unify the two pillars of knowledge with the grand unification theory, a TOE, a Theory of Everything, but no matter how hard people tried, no matter how intelligent they were, they couldnâ€™t marry the two ideas together. One of them had to be wrong. But there was no absolute black and white definitive answer and as relativity explained the atomic bomb very neatly and appeared to work on the whole pretty well, it was adopted as the prevalent theory of the universe. Other cosmologists polished and added to the detail of this remarkable edifice of human achievement now called the Standard Model, failing to notice, somewhat conveniently, that it had failed to match up with the other great pillar at all. What was even more amazing was their flat refusal to look at any other idea what so ever that contradicted their beloved edifice.
The 19th century view of the universe had been dominated in the latter part by the ether theory, but as relativity took the stage the ether was thrown out, as the baby so often is with the bathwater! Almost over night a very predictable Newtonian mechanical universe had evolved into an Einsteinian relativistic universe and everybody was happy again. As with most things, initially Einstein was considered a heretic, but when his experimental data was matched with his theoretical predictions as verified by other scientists the accuracy was stunning. The 1919 eclipse bending of light experiment was accurate to within 1% of the predicted value of Einsteinâ€™s equations. This hailed him as a genius and in 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for Physics. Interestingly if he had been within 10% correct that would have been amazing, but to be within 1% correct of the actual value was just too good to be true; with such a stunning result, he was set up for life. But a revolution was occurring and the quantum mechanic atom smasher's Ernst Rutherford and Niels Bohr, et al were busy looking into the very small and finding that there was weird stuff there.
It now seems that the weird stuff was correct. Niels Bohr said, for example, â€˜anybody who is not frightened by quantum mechanics does not understand itâ€™, and this is true. All our values of solidity disappear. There is no concrete, there is no foundation, there is only a maybe, a quantum fluctuation. Very disconcerting for a lot of people who want to believe in a comfortable universe. But there is now a new point of view that I have come to accept and it now appears that quantum gravitation using extended Newtonian mechanics can not only predict and explain all that relativity can, but it can also neatly combine with quantum mechanics as well. Quantum gravitation can go further than relativity in that it can also explain the various anomalous phenomena that we are becoming more aware of. We have already known about many of these things, but before, because there was no explanation or more importantly mathematic framework, the evidence and observations were swept under the carpet.
How do we understand something as big as the universe? Well again we turn to Albert Einstein for a great one-liner. He stated - the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is the fact that it is comprehensible. This meant that he was amazed that his own simple laws and mathematical equations could hold sway over the whole universe. Quite a statement really when one looks at the vast panorama of the heavens above us. But again if we break it down into bite-size chunks we can start to understand the structure of everything.http://www.ravenecho.com/static/135/f8b7c0e792e705528bc61cb0705d6e15.jpg
Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to bend
Letâ€™s start with atomic structure: the humble atom 75% of the whole universe is composed of just one atomic element and that is hydrogen. So straightaway three-quarters of everything that is physical is made up of just one type of atom. If we understand the structure of this one type of atom we can therefore understand the structure of three-quarters of the universe.
The hydrogen atom is extremely straightforward and simple. It is composed of just two components - a positively charged proton, which has a relatively large mass, usually assigned the value of one unit and a positive charge also of one unit. The smaller orbiting negatively charged electron, which is one eighteen hundred and fiftieth of that unit in mass, has one unit of negative charge and orbits at the speed of light, which is 300,000 kilometres per second, or 300,000,000 metres per second, 186,000 miles per second in old units.
But the idea of an electron orbiting in a classical sense is erroneous. It rather exists more as a fuzzy cloud and somewhere within that cloud there is slightly more charge, which is always on the move. The electron appears then disappears in the cloud and reappears in another position. So I am trying to lead you away from this idea that it is like a planet circling in a steady predictable orbit. It is very convenient to look at it as a planet orbiting a star, but in fact, although it does that, it is its own quantum beast at that scale.
If we imagine a circle somewhere the size of a football pitch and we hold up a grain of rice in the center of the pitch, then that is the proton. If we then have somebody running around the outside of the football pitch holding a pin, then the pinhead is the electronic charge. As you can see immediately, most of the atom is space. It is literally hollow-graphic, a single electron orbiting at the speed of light, no more solid if we freeze frame it than the television picture we watch. Yet three quarters of our universe is made up of this one type of atom.
Why then does it appear solid? Well, the charge circulates at the speed of light and therefore creates a spherical shell, which is negatively charged. When another hydrogen atom approaches it will link with the first hydrogen atom to form a hydrogen molecule. This is because the laws of observation show that one electronic charge gets lonely and electronic charges tend to like to operate in spin pairs. The only way a hydrogen atom can have a pair of electrons is to share its orbit with another hydrogen atom. So the hydrogen molecule quite happily exists as H2 with two protons and two orbiting electrons sharing the same single orbit.
The host of the stars that you see in the sky are composed mostly of hydrogen which, through a process of gravitation compressing the hydrogen gas, causes the process of thermo-nuclear fusion to occur at the centre of the star. Tremendous heat is generated, just like rubbing hands or pressing on an object, as compression causes heat. Heat causes the centre of the star to light up, providing it has sufficient mass, and then the process of nuclear fusion occurs. In this process 4 hydrogen atoms are compressed and forced together in a process of atomic fusion to produce one helium atom plus two electrons plus surplus photons, x-rays and other energies.
The centre of each star is therefore an expanding cloud of highly compressed helium and as the hydrogen fuel is used up so the helium central core expands. The energy radiated into space in the form of electro-magnetic radiation is what we experience as sunlight and without this energy there would be no life on our planet as it is the main energy source for life to exist. Amazingly 24%, almost one quarter of the universe is made up of helium. How do we know this? Well, we have analysed the light from stars and measured the amount of helium and hydrogen through spectroscopy.
A massive 99% of the whole universe is, therefore, made up of just two types of atom. Helium is inert, it has two protons, two neutrons and two electrons, all balanced perfectly in charge and structure. The atom is therefore stable. When the fuel in a star is exhausted the structure becomes unstable. The forces radiating outward in the form of electro-magnetic radiation are finely balanced with the forces inwards, mainly gravitation. As this becomes more and more unstable the star tends to expand and then suddenly implode upon itself. This process of implosion, coupled with explosion, produces the higher elements. It is very similar to holding a snowball in each hand and, compressing the two together at a rapid speed, bits fly off yet we are left with a more compact mass, which is slightly larger. So we are left with higher elements, with ever more sub-atomic particles composing much heavier elements. These are then arranged into family groups according to the number of protons in their nucleus and electrons in their outer shell.
We know, for example, that iron is a very common element in meteorites and therefore this would suggest that a common product of imploding stars is meteoric iron, which is distributed throughout the many galaxies of the universe by the explosive forces in action.
We think that the early universe contained many primal stars. These were very huge, white-hot giant stars, which because of their enormous size, burnt up their hydrogen fuel very rapidly and exploded, producing the many more complex elements that we see on Earth today. So we see a natural process of evolution in the universe. It starts off very simply with just hydrogen and helium, but rapidly becomes more and more complex as the higher elements are built and distributed throughout space. Drifting clouds of gas then become the birthplace of many other stars: stellar nurseries as we call them.
Stars are graded according to their size, 1 to 10 in magnitude. Our star, the sun, is about 3 on the scale. It is only an average size star and is yellow-hot. As the magnitude increases so the stars become white-hot and blue-white. Colour is an indication of the temperatures in action at the heart of the stars. When stars collapse, if they are of sufficient mass, they form a compact star of dense material. This is called a dwarf star and a dwarf star is a very compact mass, several tons would only be about 1 cubic centimetre. Red dwarfs are hot and white dwarfs are even hotter, but all eventually cool down to become black dwarfs. Slightly higher density stars are neutron stars, which are extremely compact. Present cosmologists believe, and there is some evidence to show, that extremely large stars collapse to form a black hole.
To give an idea of the density of a black hole, if we took the planet Earth and compacted it to the size of a one-penny coin, then that would be a black hole in terms of its mass and gravitation. All the density of the material would be in that one little, tiny piece. Thus with sufficient mass it would bend space to such a degree that light could not escape from its own surface and it may in extreme cases actually rip a hole in the very fabric of space itself. But again this is only mathematical formula and conjecture. We have yet to observe a black hole directly.
Scientists believe that there may be a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way, but there are other explanations for why our galaxy whirls at such a great rate. It is a basic law of the universe that all things spin and as we have seen from Chapter 1, the spin is inherent in the actual structure of the universe at the prime level. This spin is expressed as momentum and bulk angular momentum increases with the size of the object. Large planets will then rapidly revolve much faster than small planets. In the case of Neptune, it rotates once every ten hours. Earth, being smaller, only rotates once every 23 hours 56 minutes. Planets therefore can be seen as debris left over from the initial dust cloud conditions that form stars. The dust having been created by the imploding massive yet short-lived blue white stars of the early universe.
The secondary phase stars tend to come into existence with associated debris around the outside much later in the scheme of things. The debris coalesces into stable orbits and planets according to the density of the material. Rocky planets tend to be on the inside and the lighter, gaseous planets on the outside - much the same as a fairground ride: if you are on the outer horse of the carousel you are going much faster than on the inner horse of the carousel. This tends to sort things out through the action of centrifugal force.
We estimate that in our galaxy there are approximately 120 billion stars. Our galaxy is one of twelve galaxies rotating around the Andromeda Galaxy, which is approximately twice the mass of our own Milky Way. Our own part of the universe also contains a cluster of galaxies, which we call a Super Galaxy Cluster. Correspondingly, there are voids in space where there is very little matter and we call these Super Voids. As you can gather, the whole of the process of the universe revolves around one thing, and that is density of matter. Matter is thick space - space is thin matter, so that density is a good indicator of the distribution of energy in the universe. Matter can be regarded as frozen energy, energy that has been stabilised. As we have seen, there is enough energy in one cupful of water to destroy a whole county in an atomic explosion should we decide to liberate the atomic energy that is frozen or imprisoned as matter.
Density increases, as matter becomes more solid. We happen to live on a planet, which has an average density of around 5.46 grams per cubic centimetre. But how do we know that?
In 1798, Henry Cavendish estimated the density of the earth by using a torsion balance. The "Cavendish" dataset contains his 29 measurements of the density of the earth, presented as a multiple of the density of water. The average measurement is 5.42, suggesting that the density of the earth is 5.42 times the density of water. However, a histogram or boxplot shows that the measurements are slightly skewed right with a low outlier. These slight departures from normality indicate that the median measurement, 5.46, is a better estimator of the earth's density than the mean.
For example, we measure the density of water at 20o Celsius as being 1 - that is 1 gram per cubic centimetre (courtesy of Napoleon Bonaparte). This simply means that 1 unit of density is the equivalent to the value for water, which is the most common found substance covering the surface of the Earth. This comes from the metric measurement, which says that 1 cubic centimetre of water equals 1 gram, therefore 1 litre of water equals 1 kilogram. Density of rock on the surface, being made of silica, is approximately 2.3; iron is about 7.8 times heavier than water; lead is 11.2 times more dense than water; mercury 13.6 times more dense than water and gold 19.5 times more dense than water. Therefore gold will sink in mercury, whereas lead will float. So density is another way of sorting out materials and we think that the central core of our planet is molten iron, which is the densest part of our planet.
Now we come to the concept of free energy, as you can observe, all things spin and therefore if we could tap into this spin, or gravitational energy, then we would have a free supply of pollution-free energy for the future. It is merely a question of being able to plug into this commonly observed phenomenon. There are a number of machines that claim to have been able to do this using various electronic means or mechanical means and this will be discussed in another chapter later on in the book. But certainly free energy does exist, because the earth rotates upon its own axis without anybody pushing it and nobody is paying a bill, so the whole concept of â€˜you must pay for your energyâ€™ has to be reviewed in the light of this. As I have said before, the only crisis on this planet is ignorance. At the moment we have to pay for every drop of energy that we use through fossil fuels, coal, oil or gas, because of the effort people have to expend to extract them from the earth. As I edit this we are indeed fighting a war at this very minute in the Gulf region over the issue of oil, among other major concerns. These sources are stored sources and non-renewable in the immediate future. Therefore we have to look towards more alternative energy sources that are renewable.
At the moment tidal power, wind power, and suchlike have been considered. Solar power is obviously a great choice if you live in a desert. Unfortunately, most of the population of this planet live in somewhat cloudy temperate conditions, crammed into the more habitable zones of the earthâ€™s surface, and we have to remember that 7 billion people are trying to live on approximately 20% of the actual global surface. Of that 20% only about 3% is of, what I would term, prime habitable land. At one point in the 1960s it was said that the whole population of the earth, then about 2.5 billion, could stand shoulder to shoulder on the Isle of Wight. Now it would have to be somewhere like Madagascar for the entire human race to fit into a small space.
Therefore, as complexity rises, so conscious, functioning beings increase in number. Really we see a trade-off between the natural decline of the simpler life forms and resources of the world for an increase in consciousness. This observation will be discussed more fully later on in another chapter.
Now we come to the question of time. Time is what makes our 3-D reality work. Einstein never actually said what time was. He described how time worked, but not what it was. Really this concept of time is what gave relativity its name, because one of the curious factors of time is that time is like a lump of elastic: it can actually stretch, it can slow down and it can speed up. Gravity will slow time down and also speed will slow time down.
Einsteinâ€™s famous predictions were put to the test with two atomic clocks, one flown around the world for seven days at altitude, the another one kept in Washington. When the clocks were compared a week later it was seen that the clock flying around the world was slightly faster than the clock left in Washington. This demonstrated that Einstein was correct, that time does in fact alter with gravity. The twins' paradox was also an illustration. If two twins were born at roughly the same time on Earth and one were to go into space in a very fast rocket ship at, say, 96% light speed (which is thought to be obtainable for we could never get to 100% because our mass would increase so much that we could never quite make it, so we are constricted by physical mass), time would slow down for the twin in the rocket ship and the twin on Earth would appear to age faster than the twin in the rocket ship. The exciting thing at the moment is that this natural barrier of the speed of light, which translates into time can be broken. Several new experiments have shown that this may be possible.
Time stops events bumping into each other and it seems to be designed specifically for that purpose. In higher dimensions it is thought that there is no time, time is a product of our 3-D physical reality. The reason for this is that photons carry information/energy and require time to traverse space. This means that anything that we see is always in the past. If I observe a flower that is several feet away from my eyes it will take but a split-second for the information regarding the colour and shape of the plant to enter my eye so that I can register the data. If I observe a star 4 light years away, as the nearest star (after our own Sun) Proxima Centauri is 4 light years away, the light coming from that star will take 4 years to reach my eyes. I am therefore seeing into the past; we are really looking into a time machine when we observe the heavens and the more distant the object the further back in time it is as we observe it.
The light from our own sun takes approximately 8.5 minutes to reach Earth so if the sun were to explode then it would be 8.5 minutes later before we realised on Earth. So as we look out into space we are seeing back into time and the further we see, the earlier we see into time. At the moment we believe we have seen the edge of our observable universe and that we are observing very early quasars, which are giant galaxies compressing, contracting and imploding on themselves, giving birth to the structure of the early universe. We can observe them due to the vast radiant amounts of radio energy they produce. It was thought that the whole process of the universe was slowing down to allow complexity to increase and that this process might eventually stop and then reverse into a Big Crunch. The scientists were mainly concerned as to how much matter there was in the universe and how this would effect the eventual outcome. Whether continued expansion, stasis or contraction would be our eventual fate, but nobody was to predict what would be discovered next.
By accident, in 1965, two Bell Labs technicians Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation while testing a microwave receiver for a satellite communications experiment. No matter where they pointed their antenna, which was shaped like the section of a sphere (a 'horn'), they received a faint signal at 7.35cm wavelength. The fact that the direction of the antenna did not matter indicated that the source of the radiation was ubiquitous. Meanwhile, as the technicians struggled to find the source of the radiation, a group at Princeton University had predicted a cosmic background radiation, but had not yet physically searched for it. The signature temperature of the fluke microwave signal matched the temperature predicted by the Princeton group, about 3 degrees Kelvin.
Through the 1960's and 1970's more accurate studies were done, at varying wavelengths (the Penzias Wilson measurement was of only one wavelength) to confirm that the 3K source was indeed a 'black body' emmitter whose source was the Big Bang. The Cosmic Background Explorer satellite confirms a black-body source of 2.7 K.
The radiation in the cosmic background is from a decoupling event, some 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when space became transparent to matter. The photons produced by the previous set of nuclear interactions are in surplus when space becomes cool enough for protons and other sub-atomic particles to exist. These photons form the background radiation, distorted by our frame of reference here in the present, so that what once was a 3000 K characteristic temperature is measured by us to be 3 K.
Recent observations show that the universe is actually speeding up! This goes against every law formulated by the classic cosmologists over the last 40 years. The idea was quite simply that the large mass of the universe would act as a counter-weight to the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang and that, like a lump of elastic reaching its maximum limit, it would slow down. Then it would do one of three things - it would either continue to expand at an ever slower rate, or it would stop, or it would stop and then collapse in on itself. The whole process was thought to be dependent upon the amount of matter in the universe. There is quite simply not enough matter to account for what we observe to date. The speed of rotation of objects such as our own galaxy and other galaxies that we observe are much faster than the amount of matter that we can observe. This has given rise to the idea that there is a hidden mass to these galaxies and various theories have been put forward based on such things as cold dark matter.
Another theory which I would put forward is that the matter is present, but in a higher dimension. The forces are pan-dimensional and therefore can affect the rotation of the physical object, but the actual hidden mass of energy is in a higher dimension. This would account for the anomalous missing 9/10ths of the universe. It is now thought that inter-stellar space does contain quite a portion of hydrogen atoms, which would account for a considerable amount of more mass, but it is still no way near the figure required to fit the observations. Recent anomalous observations have shown that space is expanding far faster than we thought and there is no mechanism in the Big Bang theory to allow for continuous expansion, but there is in Ron Pearson's Theory!
Expansion may be the Achilles heel of the Big Bang theory. Why is it that the background radiation, the density of hydrogen, helium and lithium and distribution of those elements tends to confirm the Big Bang theory? Yet, other information that we are now receiving does not. We have found stars and stellar objects that are far older in estimation than the space they are contained in. You have, for instance, a 20 billion year old object apparently in 8 billion year old space.
Now, a billion for those people who are not familiar with large numbers, is a thousand million - 1 000 000 000, which is rather a lot. Scientists tend to bounce around big numbers like this with gay abandon but, for example, if you were to sit down and try to count one million it would take two weeks to count it properly. We as scientists use numbers and powers of ten of numbers to grasp some idea of the scales we are talking about. But it is difficult even for us!
The present estimate is that our universe is approximately 15 billion years old and that our own solar system is approximately 4.5 billion years old, or one-third of the age of the universe. The early universe would have been too hot for stable solar systems and life to evolve naturally. Therefore, according to the anthropic principle, we are here because the conditions are right for us to be here to be able to say this and to read this book. But again, it is only conjecture and a convenient dismissal, much like the great fall back that it is just coincidence. Estimates vary from 8 billion years from the Big Bang to the present, to 20 billion, but we settle traditionally on an average 15 billion years. Again, these are only estimates, we cannot prove it; scientists with mathematicians and cosmologists will tell you very definitely, but when we observe Chaos Theory and Number Theory we realise that there is no such thing as a fact, because quite simply, you get the measurement you want.
For instance if I measure a coastline then it can be as long as I want it to be. If I measure around every bay I will get one figure; if I measure around every rock I will get another figure; if I measure around every grain of sand I will get an even bigger figure. So really the coastline can be as big as we want. This must be remembered when we are using figures to state distances and times. They are only estimates, based on observation and instrumentation, but only estimates. I am now convinced that there is no such thing as a fact!
We, for example, have not measured the speed of light outside the gravitational field of our own solar system. It may be that gravity slows light down and that as we measure light on the surface of our planet the gravitational field of our planet alters the speed we observe light to be. Once outside the constraints of gravity in our solar system light may well speed up. There may be several speeds of light. Again, the speed of light is said to be the universal rule by which we measure everything, but it could be just like time, an illusion, a lump of elastic. Consciousness also affects our perception of time. We can, for example, have a mad passionate love affair and run off for the weekend to Paris, which would seem like an eternity, because of the intensity of the experience. Or we could work 20 years in a very mundane job and suddenly realise that 20 years have passed in the blink of an eye. The perception of time is affected by consciousness and it acts in much the same way as a movie projector does by using frames of reference.
Consciousness is therefore like a lump of elastic too, it alters our perception of time. If we crash a car, time appears to slow down, but really what has happened is that our consciousness is taking note of the information much faster and just as we make a slow-motion movie by taking more frames per second and then playing them back at normal speed, so as we crash the car we take more frames per second and therefore, just like the slow-motion movie, time appears to slow down. I have observed this personally several times in my life and there is a deceleration of events, which cause everything apparently to slow down. Also, quite noticeably, sound is stopped; everything becomes silent. So we only have a slow motion, silent movie to recall the event.
Once as a small child I propelled myself from the top of a very high slide and I shot over the edge feet first. I was able to react so quickly, that I was incredibly able to twist in mid-air and grab the side of the slide, thus preventing myself falling about 20 feet onto a very hard concrete surface. I then climbed back up onto the slide and slid down normally. It was only when I got to the bottom that I started to shake with shock. My body had gone into overdrive at a very rapid rate of knots. This is quite normal and is called the â€˜fight or flightâ€™ response. When we get frightened or excited our adrenaline rushes in a massive surge around the body and causes all our cells to function far faster than normal. We can only sustain this response for a limited amount of time and then we have the withdrawal symptoms, which cause weakness and shaking to occur in our muscles. But it is a safety mechanism and if it has done the job properly we survive.
Recent experiments with remote viewing, psychic phenomena and suchlike that can be measured, suggest that thought is capable of travelling much faster than light: maybe up to 10 times as fast, or even instantaneously. With Ron Pearsonâ€™s quantum gravitation theory and the fine filamentous sub-structure of the Intelligent Universe acting as a giant grid, we could see that information such as thought would be able to travel through the filaments from one part of the grid to another. Seeing that everything is connected to and made from the grid, all things are therefore interconnected. Time becomes a bubble not a line, past present and future one.
Recent experiments with photons have shown that when a photon is split and separated by a distance of some 5 miles, then as the one photon turns right the other photon executes the same manoeuvre despite there being a difference in spatial distance between them. They are acting as one photon. There is an information link between the two. Also, tunnelling electrons have been observed to travel through an object faster than the speed of light. The classical cosmologists tried to get round the argument that this was breaking the speed of light by saying that there is no information contained in the photons and tunnelling electrons. The scientists performing the experiment managed to pump a Beethoven symphony down one end to another and then said, â€˜howâ€™s that for information!â€™ Now that's my kind of scientist.
Again, uncomfortable discoveries like this are rejected on any grounds whatsoever to protect the status quo. As several eminent scientists have said, including Richard P Feynman, â€˜If the experiment shows that the theory is wrong, then throw the theory out. Do not try to make the experiment fit the theory.â€™ This frightening attitude can be accounted for by the fact that many scientists have spent their whole lives defending or supporting one piece of particular work that they cherish. It is a very hard thing to do, to find that it is completely wrong and therefore you have wasted a great part of your life. People therefore irrationally fight tooth and nail to defend outmoded concepts. Dogma prevails and the light of reason is dimmed.
This is a human fault. We have had it throughout history in religion, in history and in science. Paradoxically, science should be seeking the truth and the people seeking the truth should be flexible. Richard Feynman stated that he knew we could not know everything and therefore we should not expect to get everything right. We know the best we know now, because of our instruments and we will assume that people in the future, with better instruments and better ideas, will know much more than us. What is important is that we should persevere. We know we have not got all the answers, but we should not be discouraged. We should try to find the truth, no matter how difficult or hard it is. It is one of the main reasons scientists pursue knowledge in the way that they do.