Introduction
What is our physical universe made of? Is it made of one substance? A universe made of two or more substances provides a faulty foundation, just as building a foundation with two different size bricks will more often than not leave an irregular surface. This irregularity would allow the physical laws of our universe to behave unreliably. Only a universe made of one substance can preserve the natural law of consistency and order. In this text I will define one substance that embodies the essence of all things; mass, light, charged particles and gravity.
Experimental
This paper does not introduce new experimental data. Instead it will analyze past observations and draw new conclusions.
This discussion rests on the foundations of theology, philosophy, and science. Credit these disciplines for refining the analytical tools of logic and reason that are so important to this discussion. With these disciplines we look through a glass darkly, without them we grope blindly.
Throughout mans history theologians and philosophers have attempted to answer the questions of man pronouncing reasonable judgments on all matters before them. However, times have changed, and now the relatively new discipline of science, a powerful offspring of philosophy, sovereignly presides in judgment over these matters. Science claims by its definition that it is entirely true, superior to theology and philosophy by giving proofs for all its tenants.
I read recently that only a physicist can understand and explain the complexities that define mans surroundings. I've also read that the rigors of science have become too difficult for theologians and even philosophers to understand. From these propositions I see that some learned men presume only science is true and only men of science can judge its truth. To quote Lord Acton, "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Science has boldly taken this
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
1
pride full step by claiming to understand our pre and present existence embracing evolution and the big bang theory as facts, or at the very least, the only theories worthy of study. Now science is forever doomed to modify these theories to fit each new and contradictory finding or expose itself as the theologian and philosopher it now so piously discredits. Descartes1 warns, "we must wholly refrain from ever mixing up conjectures with our pronouncements on the truth of things. This warning is of no little of importance." There is no stronger fact than, "the learned, not content with the recognition of what is clear and certain, in the first instance hazard the assertion of obscure and ill-comprehended theories, at which they have arrived merely by probable conjecture. Then afterwards they gradually attach complete credence to them, and mingling them promiscuously with what is true and evident, they finish by being unable to deduce any conclusion which does not appear to depend on some proposition of the doubtful sort, and hence is not uncertain."
My warning to you; do not be fooled into believing that only science is capable of reason. It is a tyranny that some scientists, men of self determination, have set themselves up as sole authorities over theology, philosophy, and science, and have attempted to destroy the faith in all ideas that contradict their own beliefs. I make no such pretense. Every argument used within this discussion is governed by reason and all theories of physics, including this one, are truly theology.
You will notice I use many logical proofs throughout that are clearly upheld by modern physics. In fact, I do not intend to tear down what we have observed, but reinterpret it. The rest of the proofs used here are clearly philosophical.
This text melds both scientific and philosophical arguments together and casts them in one form. The following is an example of how this is done. Descartes, blended physics and philosophy wonderfully when he said "I think, therefore; I am." With this simple statement he met the single most important condition of science-it can be verified.
1 Descartes "Rules for the Direction of the Mind" Britannica Great Books vol. 31, pp. 3-4
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
2
Finally, as I answer the question "what is our physical universe made of?" I will define "physical substance" from two points of view. Sometimes from outside our reality and sometimes from within, sometimes by what things are and sometimes by what things are not.
The Definition of Space and Matter
Before we start try to complete this simple exercise. Imagine the dimension best described as nothing, (keep trying) If you complete this exercise correctly it should make your head ache and your mind rebel! Now, you are prepared to listen to a new definition of space!
I find it's always helpful to start in the beginning and starting before the beginning is even better. The Bible tells us that before the beginning there was nothing. The Bible say's that "through Him (Christ) all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3 NIV) So I will begin with nothing and we shall see what is possible.
The definition of nothing is straightforward; nothing has no components, it is all encompassing, infinite, and most important it is timeless. It remains in perfect unity and harmony for one imperfection will cause it to be something.
Our universe, before the beginning, was nothing, perfect, and infinite. My best definition of nothing is empty space. To contrast, the space we live in today is a coordinate system that is buffeted by the matter within it. Starting before the beginning, with nothing, I will argue throughout this text that an abstract definition of space is actually a substance.
If measurements of time or distance were taken before the beginning within perfect space, everywhere the measurements would have been identical. Of course an outside observer (beyond space and time itself) would have to perform these measurements to truly see that all measurements were identical and to ensure that empty space was not disturbed. Before the beginning, time was still or at least the same everywhere. It is here that we find the fundamental building block for all physical substance. Let us call this a "space
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
3
unit" (SU). A SU is defined as an interlocked portion of three dimensional distance and time (space-time). Space-time is an abstract idea when you are an observer within a SU, but it becomes a substance when observed from beyond space-time. It is my premise that all matter and energy are derived from this basic unit. Let us look at the properties of space as they have been observed by others and I shall build from there.
In today's world, with the disruptive influence of matter, it has been observed that a SU can change. Science fiction writers have popularized terms like space warp and time warp where under the power of great gravitational fields we can find time and distance changing.
The bases for these terms come from the Theory of General Relativity. This theory describes how the Earth has warped the space around it and objects like the moon are not so much held in the grips of the Earth, but really travel around the Earth in a straight line through curved space. A good illustration of this is described by Kaufmann2 where one tennis player hits the ball in a line drive 30 feet and the other player lobs it back 30 feet (fig 1). As an observer of the game you
see that the ball traveled two distinctly different paths, one low arc and one high arc. The problem with your observation is that the earth is rotating on its axis at 25000 miles a day, the earth is spinning around the sun, our solar system is circling through the galaxy, the galaxy is moving. . . . For these reasons you did not see the real path the ball traveled. Figure 2 shows that when you add the dimension of time, according to Relativity, the ball whether it is lobed or hit in a line drive travels on virtually the same arc through space. Simply put, the ball followed an identical path through warped space; the path of least resistance.Einstein also described the principle of equivalence by saying that you can not tell the difference in experiments conducted within a uniformly accelerating frame of reference, or an inertial frame of reference with a gravitational field. This means if you're far out in space and uniformly accelerating you could be fooled into thinking that you're still standing on
The Cosmic Frontiers of General Relativity pp. 63-64
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
4
Earth in a gravitational field. Especially since things still look as if they 'fair to the floor if they are dropped.
Other relativistic ideas are: The speed of light is the same regardless of the frame of reference of the observer. Moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks and clocks in greater gravitational fields run slower than clocks in lessor gravitational fields. According to the Lorentz Contraction observers at rest see that moving objects are foreshortened in the direction of travel. If you are traveling in the moving object you cannot see the foreshortening since all your references are affected. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light and the mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Lastly, it is difficult to verify most of these changes unless you are working with things that are traveling near the speed of light.
With all of this information as a reference the definition of an SU can be described as four dimensional, with time being the fourth dimension. This is a hard concept to visualize. Time, past and future can actually be thought of as another vector just like right, left, up, down, forward or backward.
Over the last century definitions of space have come and gone. Once it was thought to be an ether or fluid, but with the arrival of the theory of Relativity and the inability to measure an ether wind, space was stripped of all of its material like qualities and has become a coordinate system. Relativity describes space as a somewhat elastic coordinate system. In this discussion space is more than a coordinate system, it becomes matter itself. I realize that the proof for this must be inferred, therefore; space must have fundamental qualities similar to matter but not necessarily with matters same concentrated affect.
The basic defining difference between space and matter is quite simple. Matter or a particle can pass through space but a particle can not pass through a particle. A particle instead collides with matter and either bounces off it or with enough velocity several other possibilities exist, i.e., one absorbs the other or they could combine to form a number of new particles and emit light. ... If space can be shown to have the ability of
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
5
turning into matter then all the other observed physical laws should fall into place.
You are the observer outside of space-time. You can easily see two places in space where men are measuring the speed of a bullet fired from identical guns made in the same factory. Since the experiments are conducted in relatively free space no opposing force against the bullet is known to exist. You notice immediately a difference between the two experiments. The first experiment is being conducted in a moderate gravitational field. The people and their standard for measuring distance is shorter than the experimenters in another part of space. You have calibrated your standard for measuring distance and time to compare with the second set of experimenters and the experiment is conducted. One experimenter then radios the results to the other experimenter and they find that the results of the experiment are identical. By comparing your standard for measuring distance and time you found the bullet speed moved faster, traveling farther, in the second experiment. The experimenters then conducted a second experiment measuring the speed of light and again their results agreed the speed of light is constant. Your observations show that the speed of light is not the same in both places. You can conclude from this that the speed of light appears constant to all observers inside space-time, but if you are outside of space-time you can definitely state that the speed of light varies. Our two experimenters now meet together and find that even though their clocks run at the same speed, the times on their clocks do not agree. The clock in the greater gravitational field had been running slower. Our experimenters know that their experiment has been effected by a gravitational field and they feel confident that General Relativity is correct. Through your observations you see why the theory of Relativity works for the inside observer. More importantly is that you have observed that space-time is a substance and that particles and even light slows down when space-time is compressed.
Are things really relative? Let us look at the famous "twin paradox." One twin stays on earth. The other twin takes off in a space ship and travels at about 95% the speed of light in large loop and then he lands back on Earth. Because the twin in the rocket ship was traveling at a very high speed we know
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
6
that his clock ran slower and when he came back to Earth he was still young while the twin on Earth had grown old. The new paradox is that the rocket ship twin claims he never took off, instead the Earth left him, flew around at near the speed of light and then returned. Using all the rocket ship twins' calculations the brother that stayed on Earth should be younger. Of course we know that the twin in the rocket ship was younger at the end of the trip, but why? I use this paradox to point out that time is not relative. Time has an absolute frame of reference, and because it does, it would be obvious to an observer outside space-time that time ran slower for the rocket ship twin.
What happens if the space-time clock slows to a stop, can the clock break? If you were the outside observer beyond space-time and you compared two SU's where the first SU's clock was running slower you would see that this SU is also more compressed. If a severely compressed SU could co-exist next to a SU of an expanded size and we fired a particle at the reduced SU what would happen? The particle moving quickly through an open SU would suddenly crash into the reduced SU, finding it would take a near infinite time to pass through it, it bounces off or if traveling at a high enough speed it could be absorbed or one might split the other, etc. The point to be made here is that if the SU clock virtually stops, the SU is also compressed down to a critical mass. When the clock stops in an SU it becomes a particle.
A more serious look at this problem reveals that a particle passing through space, no matter how slow it moves, is still traveling through space, so what makes it stop? When does condensed space become a particle? Clearly a fundamental change has occurred. There is a path of least resistance that all particles must follow through space. It was described earlier as the path the tennis ball followed through warped space. The path was a result of the compression of space-time caused by a gravitational field. The ball traveled the arc following a path of least resistance. It is when space-time is fully compressed that the path of least resistance closes and space-time is reduced to the density of matter. Again, in severe compression, the continuity through space-time breaks down, the pathway through space-time no longer exists, and the SU becomes a particle.
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
7
If this theory is correct it is obvious that matter and space are made of the same substance and must interact. It also makes sense that space must be able to apply force for without this ability how could it become matter? Consider the problem of the particle accelerator. The mass of a particle increases as it nears the speed of light. A further increase in speed now requires an exponential increase in acceleration energy because the particle's mass is simultaneously increasing at an exponential rate. If you are an observer inside space-time this experiment shows that lines of force exist in space and as a particle increases in speed it crosses these lines of force and meets resistance. (See figure 3) These lines of force behave in an inertial way only
exerting force when the particle is accelerating but not slowing down the particle when it moves at a constant speed. If you are an observer outside space-time you see that as a particle moves faster space-time collapses onto the particle giving it greater mass. You could argue against me saying that the energy added to increase the speed of the particle is the only reason mass is added, but in reality you're just reinforcing my argument. Because energy is a form of space-time the following takes place: As the speed of the particle is accelerated to the speed of light, space-time collapses at the particle surface adding to its mass and time slows within it closing off the path of least resistance. Since the size of the opening to the path of least resistance is nearing zero the mass of the particle is increasing. That is why it makes sense that when the speed of the particle is increased its acceleration energy must increase at an exponential rate. Using similar logic to the equivalence principle the path of least resistance through space-time closes as space-time is compressed by a gravitational field or when a particle is accelerated through space-time and nears the speed of light. With this proof it's clear that space does apply force.Gravity
A gravitational field is thought of as an attractive force and it would not be useful in this discussion to argue that point. Let me just mention that we have assigned the attribute of attractiveness to gravity in reference to our observation of a body that falls to earth and this observation could be
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
8
explained just as well if the body was thought to be repelled from space to earth. We shall discuss gravity as an attractive force to stay with convention.
Before the beginning, in perfect empty space, the gravitational force was equal at all points. This means the net force was zero. In a sense, this equation completes the philosophical definition of nothing. If an imbalance takes place in perfect space where some space becomes more dense (more SU's) then its unity is broken and the denser space would contain an increased gravitational field. If the density of space-time varies it must exhibit a gravitational field. Simply put, matter exhibits a greater gravitational field because the density of its SU's is very high.
At the surface of a particle we find a strong interaction between space-time and matter. Space-time is nearly reduced to the critical consistency of a particle. However; this affect falls off rapidly over a short distance. Compressed space-time at the surface of a particle sets up a dark space, or no man's zone, that actually excludes the easy entry of another particle. Reversing this thought explains why an atom does not easily separate even with many protons in the nucleus.
Finally, with gravity being a force that is equally attractive on all sides it makes sense that a particle would usually take on the shape of a sphere or point.
The Charged Particle and the Charge Field
The neutral particle exhibits a neutral or gravitational like field to itself, to other objects, and to space, however; not all particles exist neutral to space. This is somewhat different than a charged particle, which can be understood with a slight twist in our current discussion. I propose if a neutral particle is broken then its fracture can take place across a non-neutral plane and the resulting pieces will not be neutral with each other. In addition, they would not be neutral with space. A better understanding may come from thinking of the particle as a condensed SU. When the condensed SU is broken the neutral space-time relationship of the condensed SU can be broken. In a simplified example imagine the neutral particle
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
9
being broken into two non-neutral parts. One of the resulting condensed SU's can be thought to have too much time and the other too little time. This loss of neutrality in a condensed SU describes the essence of a charged particle.
Let's go back to our experimenters who were measuring the speed of light and found it constant then put them in a new environment. Imagine if particles of opposite charge were unraveled back into their original space-like, non condensed nature and our experimenters were to measure the speed of light inside those two space units. They would find that the speed of light was not the same in both SU's. At this point I hope that the concept is clear enough to understand and build on.
Let's look at the limitations to the movement of the charged particle and its interaction with other particles. The study of electrons shows that they are restricted in movement, attracted to a positive potential and repelled by a negative potential. They also produce a magnetic field perpendicular to their movement. The question is will our models predict this effect? A charged particle is a compressed SU that has too much or too little time for the amount of space within it. The charged particle dominates the space time around it, propagating its mismatch in the space-time relationship into the surrounding space-time. This can be visualized as the time component of space-time being yanked into or pushed away from the particle. When a charged particle moves it arrives in one part of space sooner because of the imbalance in its space-time nature and its interaction with space.
This spatial distortion is the basis for the explanation of the direction of flight of a charged particle. It also explains its magnetic field. Because of this the charged particle is restricted in its interaction with another charged particle. If we draw an axis through a charged particle representing the line of direction the particle will move, we could see that the center of the spatial dislocation radiates from that axis. In the case of oppositely charged particles one can imagine that under the influence of their magnetic fields and opposite charge they line up like two trains on a track heading directly toward each other. If the particles have masses that are equivalent they should be able to annihilate each other,
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
1 0
however; if their masses are unequal and their energy is insufficient they will be deflected by the compressed space around the particles.
In a space without charged particles a neutral particle does not, for the most part, recognize the dimension of charged spatial distortion since the number of gravitational lines of force remain the same whether the space is distorted or not. The neutral particle follows the normal path of least resistance as it interacts with all other particles and space. However the space-time of today is a hostile environment for neutral particles left on their own since space-time is continually buffeted by strong distortions of time and distance.
As particles collide, the compressed space around each is stretched. If the particle has enough momentum the compressed space from each particle may be shared to some extent. In some cases the particle may be absorbed. In others the space may be given up or transferred. In still others the space may be violently stretched causing one or both of the particles to break apart.
Light
Light is made up of photons. Photons are packets of electro magnetic fields that travel through space. Photons travel both like particles and transverse waves. Light, like all transverse waves, must travel on an edge like a wave on water or a wave on the string of a guitar. Photons also pack a punch that can be absorbed by individual particles. The speed of a photon is constant in a vacuum and faster than all particles. Lets see if light fits into our model.
Space allows a particle to pass through it. A particle follows the path of least resistance. If space is warped by a gravitational field then the particle follows a warped path of least resistance. If we accelerate a particle toward the speed of light it gains mass and follows a new path of least resistance. There is always a path through space. The difference between a particle and space is that there is no path through a particle. Light follows the path of least resistance through space. If space is warped by a
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
11
gravitational field then light follows the warped path of least resistance. Light does not accelerate nor does it decelerate. Is light a component of space traveling and oscillating along the path of least resistance? Light does not have mass.
I submit that a photon of light is a pulse of distorted space traveling along the pathway of least resistance in space. The pathway is a window complete with the edge needed to give light the characteristic of a transverse wave and the compactness of a packet of energy. The pulse is a distortion of time and distance plucked and sent like a wave along the windows edge. The window represents the opening of the path of least resistance through space. The window exists between the average density of space and the density it would have to become to create a particle. Without this window at the edge of space-time light would not exist. When space condenses to a particle the window ceases to exist and light stops with impact. Figure 4 shows that as the SU gets smaller the window or path of least resistance also gets smaller until it becomes a particle and the window closes altogether.
Since a photon travels along the windows edge there is no density to the photon but space itself. There is no mass or the window would close. The only limit to the speed of the photon is the medium of space itself.
The photon is a pulse distortion of the space window. It is a fluctuating dimension determined partly by the average density of space and partly by the oscillation of time and distance along it's edge.
Photons can be generated through all sorts of imbalanced reactions such as particle collisions, nuclear decay, the oscillation of charged particles. ... It appears that Planck's constant and the frequency of light, which defines the energy of a photon, is the perfect description of time and distance vibrating along the path of least resistance on the windows edge of space-time.
The "Big Bang Theory"
From our discussion we could easily decide that the Big Bang theory is correct. Lets again imagine it and see how it works.
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
12
Space-time compresses down upon itself causing it to exhibit a graded density. Then, after an infinite instant in time, space-time crystallizes and the mass of our universe is created, held in by a compressed space that would take a nearly infinite amount of time to pass through. Power generated by this accumulated mass overcomes the surrounding space and the greatest explosion man has ever imagined occurs. The Big Bang is one of many theories and I do not endorse it here. What is interesting is that the Big Bang theory describes the ultimate black hole and demands that it fall apart. This does seem to be problematic and certainly needs more debate.
The Ultimate Challenge; the Principle of Change
Since this discussion is coming to a close I'd like to direct you to an even more important question, 'how was our physical universe made?'
The continuance of change dictates the direction and essence of all physical existence moment by moment. The ultimate theory must account for this change and its cause. When you take a look at the big bang theory, considering what has been said, it looks plausible. However; the most important point, true regardless of any theory, was left out. It is true that a first change must occur to allow for any other change to exist, and this change must be created. Furthermore; if one eventful change is created then more likely there are many changes orchestrated. It is at this point that I must turn over all speculations to the only authoritative truth we have, the Bible, which itself claims to be the word of God. God said He made all things by His word. He was there. I challenge you to come up with a system that explains our universe that does not require at least one unexplained physical change to occur. It can not be done. Therefore it requires only the slightest amount of faith for the rational man to believe in God.
© Randie H. Dorrance July 3, 1994
In fig 4 you see a window that is open in empty space and closes as the density of space nears the density of a particle. The window represents the end of the dimension of space-time itself. When the window fully closes space becomes a particle. Light moves along the very edge of this dimension. Space time is the dimension that we exist within. In order to move faster then the speed of light, forces would need to pull the window open and allow you to enter it completely leaving the dimension of space-time. The reasoning behind why there is an edge at the end of the dimension of space-time is that the edge must exist everywhere in space to allow room for the compression of an SU to become a particle. This means that time-space exists on a four dimensional plane and it is elastic. It also means that beyond all known existence defined by space-time, energy and particles there is a end, a limit, an edge. This is really a discusion of the limit of our dimension. At the end or edge of our dimension there exists room that allows space-time to both expand and contract. Allows light to ride as a wave. Allows particles to shift laterally inexplicably as they move forward in a straight line where the path of least resistance is constantly moving according the the gravitational waves that oscillate along with light at the very limits of our existence.
Although this is a complicated subject, which I have dwelt on over many years, it some ways lets me humorously think that I have described four dimensional space-time as a world which is flat and there exists a place where you could fall of the edge if you set up the right circumstances.
There is a lot more to be said around limits, waves, and edges that inherently must follow if the logic described within this document is correct. Places where you might be at a stop in reference to all our known existence. For now that will have to wait.
If you like this subject try space-timedimensions.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment