Draft Ver 4.
May 25, 2003; Rev June 6, 2003; June 27,2003; July 12, 2003
Author: L.K. Hempfling
THE UNIVERSE:
A lot has been said about ‘The Universe”.
“The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination. But the combination is locked up in the safe.” Peter De Vries. [19]
“The universe may have a purpose, but nothing we know suggests that, if so, this purpose has any similarity to ours.” Bertrand Russell. [19]
“The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.” “The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.” Carl Sagan. [19]
“The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.” Eden Phillpotts. [19]
“We may explore the universe and find ourselves, or we may explore ourselves and find the universe. It matters not which of these paths we choose.” Diana Robinson. [19]”Every time we start thinking we’re the center of the universe, the universe turns around and says with a slightly distracted air, ‘I’m sorry. What’d you say your name was again?’” Margaret Maron. [19]
“The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” Stephen W. Hawking. [19]
“So far as modern science is concerned, we have to abandon completely the idea that by going into the realm of the small we shall reach the ultimate foundations of the universe. I believe we can abandon this idea without any regret. The universe is infinite in all directions, not only above us in the large but also below us in the small.” Emil Wiechert. [19]
“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books; a mysterious order it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.” Albert Einstein. [19]
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Albert Einstein. [19]
“If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?” Carl Sagan. [19]
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” C. S. Lewis. [19]
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” Douglas Adams. [19]
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Stephen W. Hawking. [19]
“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” Carl Sagan. [19]
Professor Hawking: If the set of rules and the equations are not the same thing and there is only one of them and if it could not explain what causes it all then it could not be the unified law. Theories are not what science seeks.
After exploring some fundamental misunderstandings and methods of measurement and perspective and relevance this presentation will begin at this level of existence and present its proofs one step at a time, down many different paths, using the same formula, equation or algorithm (your choice of terms) to reach the beginning of our Universe and before it until it can no longer be calculated.
Each step will be presented in algorithmic form and verifiable independently either by following the logic of the math or causing it to be calculated with the same formula. It will prove through demonstration in whichever form of accepted thinking the reader employs.
On The States Of Energy, Gravity And
The Exponential Universe
“In searching for an alternative, a key observation is that not all entities in science are explained in terms of more basic entities. In physics, for example, space-time, mass and charge (among other things) are regarded as fundamental features of the world, as they are not reducible to anything simpler. Despite this irreducibility, detailed and useful theories relate these entities to one another in terms of fundamental laws. Together these features and laws explain a great variety of complex and subtle phenomena. It is widely believed that physics provides a complete catalogue of the universe’s fundamental features and laws. As physicist Steven Weinberg puts it in his 1992 book Dreams of a Final Theory, the goal of physics is a ‘theory of everything” from which all there is to know about the universe can be derived. But Weinberg concedes that there is a problem with consciousness. Despite the power of physical theory, the existence of consciousness does not seem to be derivable from physical laws. He defends physics by arguing that it might eventually explain what he calls the objective correlates of consciousness (that is, the neural correlates), but of course to do this is not to explain consciousness itself.” [13]
The paper, ‘The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing”, by this author, published at EnticyPress challenges Weinberg’s concern with empirical demonstration and logical conclusions able to be duplicated so easily a game of Uno® becomes a science tool. But, Weinberg was right in one major respect: before science would contemplate the potential of there existing a finite law it would first have to answer its own curiosity question of life, consciousness and pain.
Enticypress.com now contains documents reaching into many different aspects of brain behavior and outcome. If the reader has not yet digested that material it is highly recommended to be so digested before continuing with this piece.
This paper is referenced in the aforementioned brain paper as providing further detail of the claim that somehow ‘dark-energy’ is the form of charge used in the brain’s dynamic system. Such grand claim requires grand proof.
Every previously proposed description of our Universe has faltered at the point of a missing explanation.
This presentation is different.
Contemplate the notion that if we were able, through intellect alone, to identify the smallest ‘quanta’ of energy, and yet still be unable to identify where it came from, would one not suppose, we might be too close to the smallest thing in the evolutionary path, to have a perspective with ability, to not see only, the forest?
All The Way Down
The notion that causes are obviously smaller than results is both correct and incorrect. While all sorts of particles have been theorized as being responsible for ‘smaller’, reductionism, (a procedure or theory that reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms) [1] confuses the simplicity of the explanation’s comparison to already understood concepts, with the explanation itself, and the result is fiction, supporting fiction, as if it were ‘balls’ all the way down, instead of ‘turtles’.
The story, most recently reincarnated through Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” has become a more modern folklore of an old lady telling off a know it all scientist. But the story got its start as an ancient one, where a great King commanded his wizard to explain what was holding up the earth. His answer was a giant elephant. From there he was forced to concoct the ‘turtles, all the way down’ syndrome. Imposing something humans already understood, to appeal to the sultan’s anthropocentric default condition.
It is a belief that humans are central to the Universe, and supported everyday by observation. After all, if humans were not central to the Universe who was making those observations anyway?
From turtles we have graduated to particles. Science seeks smaller and smaller particles; a particle must have something smaller responsible for it?It is no different than the turtles. Particles are no more holding up the earth than turtles were. At the time of the Sultan, turtles were known and particles were a future concept. Today, particles are the rage, since balls are easy to understand, but balls or particles do not hold up the Universe. And ‘easy to understand’, should never be the criteria for understanding.
A system does hold everything up, as a system can be duplicated without remaining the same system. It is that system; referred to as the ‘theory of everything’ that science believes can be acquired through reductionism (the attempt to explain all biological processes by the same explanations (as by physical laws) that chemists and physicists use to interpret inanimate matter; also: the theory that complete reductionism is possible) [1].
Complete reductionism is possible as long as the right thing is being reduced and the right thing is being evaluated. Just as the giant elephant is not standing on the back of a turtle, the Universe is not standing on the back of a smaller particle.
Particles are enticing. They have form. They have mass. They have everything a visual thinking person needs to make a picture in their mind of something they already know about. Aren’t we all happy that the first comparison to a particle was not as a lump of coal? We would all be searching for the smaller lump it came from. But it would be just as erroneous as the balls we look for today.
Some assumptions can be made based on the universal system, as a criteria for meeting the qualifications of a ‘theory of everything’, without respect to any previous theory:
1: There is one simple system in the Universe.
2: Everything is caused by that same system.
3: It is “system, all the way down”.
4: The ‘system’ can be described by an equation.
5: The equation is applied to everything.
6: The equation accounts for everything.
7: The lowest rung in the heap of ‘turtles’ is that system.
*(The exact same criteria for any ‘theory’ of everything.)
But What’s This?
[14]
“In ‘The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe,’ which appeared in the May 28, 1999 issue of the journal Science, a group of cosmologists and physicists from Princeton University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory surveyed the wide range of evidence which, they wrote, ‘is forcing us to consider the possibility that some cosmic dark energy exists that opposes the self-attraction of matter and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.’ “ [1]
“As numerous observations and experiments reshape the field, many cosmologists are exploring the possibility that the vast majority of the energy in the universe is in the form of a hitherto undiscovered substance called ‘quintessence’.” [1]
The word comes from the 15th century and has found favor with the star-struck as it means “the fifth and highest element in ancient and medieval philosophy that permeates all nature and is the substance composing the celestial bodies,” in its first definitions; “the essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated form”, in its second definition; and “the most typical example or representative”, in the definition it is undoubtedly hoped it will live up to. [1]
The various names given to the theories of discovery of another form of energy include “… dark energy as a cosmic field associated with inflation; a different, low-energy field (15th Century) dubbed “quintessence”; and the cosmological constant, or vacuum energy of empty space.” [1]
MECHANICS
In an effort to rectify the error of Bohr-Sommerfeld; Werner Heisenberg among others sought to evolve a “quantum mechanics” that would be applicable to all atoms. +*
“The basic idea of Heisenberg’s ‘breakthrough’ paper was to get rid of the orbits in atoms and to arrive at new mechanical equations by working backwards from the observed frequencies and intensities of the light emitted and absorbed by matter. Working with an actual atom proved too complicated at this point. So Heisenberg studied instead a charged ball on a spring, an oscillator, whose motion was not quite regular (anharmonic).” [4]
“Heisenberg looked first at the connection between the observable properties of the emitted light–its color (frequency) and the intensity–and the motion of the charged ball according to the classical mechanics of Newton. Then he considered the quantum properties of the observed light and reinterpreted the classical formulas for the motion in order to give the observed frequencies and intensities. This resulted in an unfamiliar rule for multiplying two amplitudes of the oscillation in order to obtain an intensity; normal multiplication gave the wrong result.” [4]
“If two position variables can be expressed as Fourier series consisting of amplitudes A(n,k) and B(k,m), where n,m,k are integers, then multiplying two amplitudes together to obtain an intensity results in an infinite sum over all values of k:” [4]
C(n,m) = åk A(n,k) B (k,m) [4]
“This led to the puzzling result that the “commutation law” in arithmetic is no longer necessarily valid. That is, A times B does not necessarily equal B times A in quantum mechanics. This was particularly important when Heisenberg obtained the quantum mechanical expression corresponding to the “quantum conditions” in the old quantum theory. If the momentum p and the position q of a particle could be represented by Fourier series, then a differential expression for the multiplication pq in the old quantum theory became a difference expression in which pq does not equal qp. Instead, there is the famous “commutation relation” for the quantization condition that is at the basis of quantum mechanics:” [4]
The entire field is consumed by the single notion of commutation relation but the deductions made initially of there being one state of that relation (one dimension) resulted in an either-or condition and not a potential either-and condition. The assumption was carried by Heisenberg in his either wave or particle concentration by selecting a charged ball (particle perspective) instead of a stretched rubber band (wave perspective) to study.
“If two position variables can be expressed as Fourier series consisting of amplitudes A(n,k) and B(k,m), where n,m,k are integers, then multiplying two amplitudes together to obtain an intensity results in an infinite sum over all values of k:” [4]
Since multiplication is nothing but adding and division is nothing but subtraction that leaves addition and subtraction as the two true operations. Nothing can exist if it is only a subtraction. Everything would exist if it were only an addition. Without both being active at the same time no degree of expansion would be possible only either-or total expansion or total reduction. It would be the binary universe, for the brief moment it would have existed.
DEGREES
Since our Universe exists in degrees of total expansion or total reduction, regardless of how one wishes to view it, the summation can only be, that both must exist at the same time, and the Universe we know, is a degree of total expansion and total reduction.
By using the Fourier calculation, Heisenberg based his assumptions on the existence of the total expansion based on a perceived yet not eluded point of opposition. The assumed total reduction: The value ‘0’.
It is understandable that for the stretched rubber band analogy to be correct there must be anchoring points on both ends of the rubber band which translates to anchor points or bases in the Universe.
But isn’t the concept of the Universe routed in such a point already?
“The de Broglie hypothesis introduced the idea that particles are in some sense associated with waves…”, [15] but what are waves associated with?
“…Born proposed that these are abstract waves describing fluctuations in probability amplitude.”, [15] but what are waves associated with and if the association with abstract waves require the presence of a measurable amplitude to observe then such waves would not exist until the observation took place (and if you’re really arrogant you could toss in the requirement that a consciously aware (yet not know what either are) person would have to accomplish and observe the measurement) or the fact that a human did not know would render what was not known, unknown and therefore somehow non-existent. Which would mean that a non-existent thing exists in order for an existent thing to exist.
It is like tying a rubber band around a straw:
The wave is anchored to the value of ‘0’ in order to be measurable. But this anchoring method would dictate the wave to be singular while the current conception of energy (the wave being a disturbance of a medium) would be shown like this:
It is customary to consider the value of ‘0’ as a place holder which would make calculations using ‘0’ start at that point and expand out or reduce behind that point not making an anchor at all but a literal imposition of its name. Nothing is actually nothing.
CONVOLUTED INTERPRETATION
de Broglie’s thesis and Bohr’s convoluted interpretation do not give “…us any details of the waves, other than their wavelengths. To proceed further, we need a way to determine the waves.” [15]
Waves can be interpreted as either finite things or as results.
Like some magical mystical interference Bohr’s interpretation makes a wave deemed to have just been an abstract which makes it a fairy tale until it is told: like a cartoon becoming real life, only when it is viewed, even though it is a cartoon.
“The way to do this was discovered by Schrödinger. He proposed that wavefunctions are solutions to a rather peculiar kind of equation,” [15]
[15]
“Here is the rate of change of the slope—the curvature—of the wavefunction at position x, V(x) is the potential energy at position x, and E is the total energy; we have also used the conventional abbreviation ” [15]
“A way to understand where Schrödinger’s equation comes is to learn about a key relation that tells us that while in our everyday experience the position and momentum of a particle seem to be simple numbers, it turns out that instead they are something different, for when we multiply them as x p we get a different result than when we multiply them as p x. The difference turns out to be proportional to Planck’s constant, h. Because Planck’s constant is so tiny, the difference is absolutely negligible in everyday experience. But for electrons in atoms and molecules, where both distances (x) and masses, and so momenta (p) are tiny, the difference becomes huge. This evident property of our world is known as the position momentum commutation relation. It, together with de Broglie’s relation, is the foundation on which all of quantum mechanics rests.” [15]
“…while the commutator is nearly zero on the scale of everyday experience, since Planck’s constant is so small (on the order of 10-34 J s), the difference is not exactly zero. This small deviation from zero is the very foundation of the quantum behavior of matter and light.” [15] It is a non-zero value.
“Because of the scientific and philosophical implications of the seemingly harmless sounding uncertainty relations, physicists speak of an uncertainty principle, which is often called more descriptively the ‘principle of indeterminacy.’” [7]
“The origins of uncertainty entail almost as much personality as they do physics. Heisenberg’s route to uncertainty lies in a debate that began in early 1926 between Heisenberg and his closest colleagues on the one hand, who espoused the ‘matrix’ form of quantum mechanics, and Erwin Schrödinger and his colleagues on the other, who espoused the new “wave mechanics.’” [7]
“Most physicists were slow to accept “matrix mechanics” because of its abstract nature and its unfamiliar mathematics. They gladly welcomed Schrödinger’s alternative wave mechanics when it appeared in early 1926, since it entailed more familiar concepts and equations, and it seemed to do away with quantum jumps and discontinuities. French physicist Louis de Broglie had suggested that not only light but also matter might behave like a wave. Drawing on this idea, to which Einstein had lent his support, Schrödinger attributed the quantum energies of the electron orbits in the old quantum theory of the atom to the vibration frequencies of electron “matter waves” around the atom’s nucleus. Just as a piano string has a fixed tone, so an electron-wave would have a fixed quantum of energy. This led to much easier calculations and more familiar visualizations of atomic events than did Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, where the energy was found in an abstruse calculation.” [7]
“In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory. He also argued for the superiority of wave mechanics over matrix mechanics. This provoked an angry reaction, especially from Heisenberg, who insisted on the existence of discontinuous quantum jumps rather than a theory based on continuous waves.” [7]
“After Schrödinger showed the equivalence of the matrix and wave versions of quantum mechanics, and Bohr presented a statistical interpretation of the wave function, Jordan in Göttingen and Paul Dirac in Cambridge, England, created unified equations known as “transformation theory.” These formed the basis of what is now regarded as quantum mechanics. The task then became a search for the physical meaning of these equations in actual situations showing the nature of physical objects in terms of waves or particles, or both. As Bohr later explained it, events in tiny atoms are subject to quantum mechanics, yet people deal with larger objects in the laboratory, where the “classical” physics of Newton prevails. What was needed was an “interpretation” of the Dirac-Jordan quantum equations that would allow physicists to connect observations in the everyday world of the laboratory with events and processes in the quantum world of the atom.” [7]
“Studying the papers of Dirac and Jordan, while in frequent correspondence with Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg discovered a problem in the way one could measure basic physical variables appearing in the equations. His analysis showed that uncertainties, or imprecisions, always turned up if one tried to measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. (Similar uncertainties occurred when measuring the energy and the time variables of the particle simultaneously.) These uncertainties or imprecisions in the measurements were not the fault of the experimenter, said Heisenberg, they were inherent in quantum mechanics. Heisenberg presented his discovery and its consequences in a 14-page letter to Pauli in February 1927. The letter evolved into a published paper in which Heisenberg presented to the world for the first time what became known as the uncertainty principle.” [7]
“The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. –Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927” [7]
It wound up giving Heisenberg a major role in Quantum Mechanics while matrices would become a near thing of the past. While, it was the fault of the experimenter.
In Heisenberg’s rush to not be left out he observed the measurements and assumed the thing being measured was the point and ignored the thing doing the measurements.
The interpretation based on the perspective of the thing being measured means loosely what Heisenberg said it did:
“I believe that the existence of the classical “path” can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The “path” comes into existence only when we observe it. –Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927” [8]
By speaking from the perspective of the thing being measured Heisenberg spoke for that thing without considering the thing being measured is not the same thing.
MEASUREMENT
When a wave’s momentum is measured the wave is measured by receiving it as a wave. When a particle is being measured the wave is measured by interaction with the frequency of the device doing the measurement, which forms the particle, which is the observance and therefore the charged ball. Vision does not interact with light frequencies as the receptors used in the eye are more like variable resistors. The process within does not connect to the process without.
By measuring a position we must stop the momentum even if it is for a very short span or there would be no position. A wave has measurable wavelength during the counting of a universally accepted measurement of time. Once a measurement is taken of position that time no longer has measurement unless the amplitude of the wave being measured is larger than the opposing amplitude of the wave doing the measuring.
The method of measurement is different. Heisenberg does not question the observance of events of the wave in the measured or not measured state. Heisenberg does not question the observance of events of the particle in the measured or not measured state. He creates a mysticism of inclusion in mechanics by persisting with the perspective of the thing being measured at the moment of the measurement only.
While Heisenberg was concentrating on the sub-atomic event and missing the perspective of the measuring itself (you cannot tell how many beans are in a jar if you weigh the color of each bean): Schrödinger was combating the concept of the absurdity of it all with a simple house cat.
Albert Einstein never liked the idea saying that quantum mechanics is ’incomplete.’
“… A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.” [10]
It is nothing more than Einstein’s comparison of the same absurdity using the moon as an example.
It is quite evident that Schrödinger was much smarter than those who read his small insertion in a 1935 paper discussing the “conceptual problems” [10] of Quantum Mechanics at that time, and the competing interpretations making up the Mechanics. The point of that paper was the ‘conceptual problems’ (visibility was big on his list, yet he could conjure a concept regarding it) and he presented the most obscure and ridiculous experiment he could undoubtedly think of to dissuade the followers of Uncertainty who had not listened to Einstein, and they listened and they heard:
“It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation.” [10]
That was not a rebuttal of the concept presented, it was a defense of the duality concept of Uncertainty, spiced a bit, with the favor of protectionism, regarding the mysticism of Mechanics.
“I do not think anyone has a good understanding of what is going on here although many physicists are firmly convinced of the correctness of the interpretation they favor. My own inclination is to think that Einstein was correct and we need a deeper theory to explain events like the decay of a particle that will dispatch Schrödinger’s poor cat.” [9] Or, on a macro scale, dispense with the moon, on a person by person basis.
Quintessence fits the bill for that higher power to match the mysticism of the unexplainable with the comfort of the one doing the understanding.
Rather, it has served to obfuscate the potential for an observable binding of the empirical evidence, portraying micro and macro events, that had been screaming for attention the moment Planck identified it.
ESTABLISHED THEORIES
“Established theories of particle physics make contributions to the cosmological vacuum energy that are many orders of magnitude greater than its possible value. The latter can only be calculated within a complete quantum theory of gravity, to which the vacuum energy poses a naturalness challenge orders of magnitude more acute than the hierarchy of mass scales in particle physics. No convincing mechanism for canceling the vacuum energy has been formed in string theory, the only persuasive candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. Perhaps string theorists have been barking up the wrong tree, and should shift their attention to calculating the small non-zero value suggested by observation.” [11]
“Think of a guitar string that has been tuned by stretching the string under tension across the guitar. Depending on how the string is plucked and how much tension is in the string, different musical notes will be created by the string. These musical notes could be said to be excitation modes of that guitar string under tension. “ [16]
“In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the “musical notes” or excitation modes of elementary strings. “ [16]
“In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in string theory are floating in space-time, they aren’t tied down to a guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a’), where a’ is pronounced “alpha prime” and is equal to the square of the string length scale. “ [16]
“If string theory is to be a theory of quantum gravity, then the average size of a string should be somewhere near the length scale of quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about 10-33 centimeters, or about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.” [16]
So string theory is nothing more than Planck’s constant in 3D, which defies Planck’s constant.
To make string theory closer to correct it would have to change its scale from the smallest to the largest and recognize the non-zero state binding each string together.
“VACUUM ENERGY”
Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said, “Recent observations appear to indicate that the vacuum energy density, although unnaturally small, may be non-zero, and indeed large enough to dominate the energy density of the Universe on cosmological scales. These observations raise the stakes further, by providing a very concrete challenge for fundamental physics: to calculate its value.”
“In 1900, Max Planck was working on the problem of how the radiation an object emits is related to its temperature. He came up with a formula that agreed very closely with experimental data, but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized–that is, it could only take on certain values. The energy would have to be proportional to the frequency of vibration, and it seemed to come in little “chunks” of the frequency multiplied by a certain constant. This constant came to be known as Planck’s constant, or h, and it has the value:” [17]
“Based on Planck’s work, Einstein proposed that light also delivers its energy in chunks; light would then consist of little particles, or quanta, called photons, each with an energy of Planck’s constant times its frequency.” [17]
But for a constant to be constant it must be representative of something. It represents the smallest value equaling something in relation to anything else opposing it.
In “Importance of Discovering the Nature of Dark Energy” by Steven Weinberg of the Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin: “Our best attempts at a fundamental theory suggest the presence of a cosmological constant that is many (perhaps as many as 120) orders of magnitude greater than the upper bound set by astronomical observations. For decades the problem seemed to be to and a symmetry or cancellation mechanism of some sort that would make the cosmological constant precisely zero. The single greatest failure of our most promising theories (such as string theories) is that they do not satisfy this requirement. Now that a dark energy has apparently been found, the problem is even harder: not just to explain why the dark energy is so tiny compared with what would have been expected theoretically, but also to explain why it happens to be of the same order of magnitude (roughly twice) as the energy in matter at the present moment in the history of the universe.” [12]
Using measurement tools represented by the charge state we live in measurements of an opposing charge state would be on the order of non-zero. It would take using the right tool to measure the opposing state in any degree.
“In a monoid or multiplicative group where the operation is a product, the multiplicative inverse of any element g is the element g-1 such that g * g-1 = g-1 * g =1, with 1 the identity element.,” And, “In an additive group G, the additive inverse of an element a is the element a’ such that a+a’=a’+a=0, where 0 is the additive identity of G.” [14][15]
“A matrix is singular if its determinant is 0” [14] and a “matrix is nonsingular if its determinant is nonzero” [15]. This deduction is conducive of the belief that the binary state of 1 and 0 are exclusive of each other and not dependent upon each other (Perspective of either-or instead of either-and).
Nonzero means; “A quantity which does not equal zero is said to be nonzero. A real nonzero number must be either positive or negative, and a complex nonzero number can have either real or imaginary part nonzero.”
DARK WHAT?
What is the opposite of light?
The first answer received to that question posed to acquaintances is usually ‘dark’. The more common logically deduced answer is ‘the lack of light’. (Quantum mechanics would dictate it to be the wave instead of the photon.)
What then is the opposite of ‘the lack of light’?
Any light at all.
That matches the multiplicative inverse and the additive inverse requirements that force the observer to then question what the opposite of 1 would be if it were not 0? Can 0 not be the opposite of 1?
Both multiplicative inverse and additive inverse requirements state the opposite of 1 is -1.
If we lived in the state of 1 then everything we would see not of this state would be deemed as -1 or ‘vacuum energy’ or ‘dark energy’ and would be observed as non-zero as the opposite of this charge state.
But would such a deduction be valid if this state of energy is a minority of all energy and therefore the nonzero of the entire rest of the universe?
The universe we see is the universe of this nonzero state: a state of existence that matches a state of existence in nonzero condition while occupying the same space causing reaction between the two states that was at first observable by the existence of a brain able to question it (not Bohr’s Copenhagen guess nor Heisenberg’s pressured, error ridden, proof) then by the technology able to measure it then by the readings acquired through deep space microwave red-shift calculations able to determine its existence, then by the actual event of that joint existence condition termed the ‘big bang’ which has reactions within its own state, in direct adherence with the rules of the system.
The energy state we are in is viewed by us as being positive while viewed by the majority of the universe as being anti-positive. The universe detected as ‘dark energy’ or ‘vacuum energy’ by tools of the –1 charge state is the majority of the universe yet only present in a nonzero condition within this state therefore Weinberg is answered, Heisenberg is clarified and Bohr is excused.
“Traditionally, following Niels Bohr’s lead, arguments about the nature of measurement in quantum theory have assumed a clear distinction between the quantum system that’s being measured and a separate classical system that’s doing the measuring.” [16]
The problem lies in the interpretation.
“At one extreme is the belief that measurements become real only when there’s a conscious human observer around to notice them. That would mean a mechanical robot arm opening the box containing Schrödinger’s “half-dead, half-alive” cat couldn’t resolve the hapless creature’s dilemma. Instead the robot would have to drag the cat in front of a human observer before the state could be resolved.” [16]
“This sort of philosophy causes trouble when applied to the Universe as a whole. Stars, planets and galaxies are quantum systems like everything else. But are we to imagine that the whole Universe remained in a state of cosmic quantum indeterminacy until human beings evolved consciousness? And when during the dawning of human consciousness was the Universe forced to drop its cloak of quantum indeterminacy and take on solid form? Put this way, the argument seems absurd, but on the other hand if the Universe congealed into a classical solidity before we came upon the scene, what sort of measurements or observations accomplished the transformation?” [16]
“Could decoherence be the answer to this conundrum? If classical properties can emerge from quantum systems simply because random and uncontrollable interactions sabotage the coherence necessary for true quantum behavior, could classical behavior also emerge inexorably as the whole Universe evolves. This idea seems to make sense. Think how impossible it would be to keep something as huge as our Universe in a true quantum state for anything more than a tiny fraction of a second. Is decoherence then what makes the cosmos and everything in it seem solid and definite to us?” [16]
LIKE A GAME OF Uno®.
If you try this at home you will see what it means. Just play a game of Uno® but start with a brand new set of Uno® decks. Open them and place them together one on top of the other. Do not shuffle the decks. Start playing. At first, the game will be rather comical and nearly impossible to reach equality of winning sides, but after each game turn the used cards upside down, and start over again without shuffling. After a number of such games the order of the cards will begin to take on a different scheme and will offer each player a less predictable card.
The object of the game (to leave first with no points, Mattel® will tell you the object of the game is to reach 500 points first but those points come from your opponent so the object of the game is to leave first with no points to get those other points.) As long as both players are sufficiently playing the cards in their hand by what the cards say to do (get rid of high cards first and consider all cards of the same color as the total points of that color) then both sides will have an equal chance at what comes out of the pile of new cards made from previous piles of previous games.
When the time could come that a self-aware observer would be able to even notice Uno® being played, the game would appear random, and it would be determined to help that cause by shuffling the deck. In cards we can do that. In reality we can only theorize it into potential existence and call it Quantum Mechanics.
In physics shuffling the deck is the injection of the randomness of seemingly disjointed causes and events when it is actually the dynamic system of the Universe observed far after its initial right out of the wrapper simplicity.
The rules stay the same. The game goes on. How the deck gets in the game and what the deck really is, is what physics is all about.
OBSERVATION
It is not the use of a classical physics measurement that causes the Uncertainty it is the use of an intrusive measurement whether that measurement is made directly at the wave causing a quantum state or from the result of a self-aware observer measuring with a tool that can be interpreted and misunderstood acquiring a reflection of the quantum state through tool observation.
If it is made indirectly at the particle, the result of a quantum state, using direct visual or aural inputs to the brain the observation will be deduced to be Classical when Classical Newtonian Physics is the first layer of understanding based on macro events, Quantum Physics the causal layer of understanding for macro events based on micro events.
No, it doesn’t get any smaller. It just requires the right perspective. Instead of Heisenberg’s ‘either-or’ the perspective should be ‘either-and’.
Where Complexity Theory relies on random as “…the science of efficient computation…”[17] the requirement for randomness is said to be “…whether or not a phenomenon is random depends on the computational resources of the observer…”[17]
When in actuality whether or not a phenomenon is random depends on the [measurement] resources and the computational resources of the observer. The observer is at the mercy of the method used and means used to measure. If using the wrong means or method no measurement will be taken or a non-zero measurement will be ignored yet if there are results showing effects elsewhere randomness is given the credit. There is nothing random in the Universe. There is only improper measurement leading to improper deduction by observers.
Of the numerous concepts offered in the preceding paragraph, the photoelectric effect is the best path to inclusion:
Einstein’s chunks of light, quanta or photon by name pose a dilemma when adhering to Uncertainty. The frequency of a wave (the color) makes a difference but not a difference.
“Higher-frequency photons have more energy, so they should make the electrons come flying out faster; thus, switching to light with the same intensity but a higher frequency should increase the maximum kinetic energy of the emitted electrons. If you leave the frequency the same but crank up the intensity, more electrons should come out (because there are more photons to hit them), but they won’t come out any faster, because each individual photon still has the same energy.” [17]
“And if the frequency is low enough, then none of the photons will have enough energy to knock an electron out of an atom. So if you use really low-frequency light, you shouldn’t get any electrons, no matter how high the intensity is. Whereas if you use a high frequency, you should still knock out some electrons even if the intensity is very low.” [17]
“Therefore, with a few simple measurements, the photoelectric effect would seem to be able to tell us whether light is in fact made up of particles or waves.” [17]
“In 1913-1914, R.A. Millikan did a series of extremely careful experiments involving the photoelectric effect. He found that all of his results agreed exactly with Einstein’s predictions about photons, not with the wave theory.” [17]
“Some experimental results, like this one, seem to prove beyond all possible doubt that light consists of particles; others insist, just as irrefutably, that it’s waves. We can only conclude that light is somehow both a wave and a particle–or that it’s something else we can’t quite visualize, which appears to us as one or the other depending on how we look at it.” [17]
The perspective of the particle causes the particle to be the point. The perspective of the wave causes the wave to be the point. By employing ‘either-and’ instead of ‘either-or’ we see the perspective is missing the point.
The problem with the photoelectric effect’s details is in the perspective.
“…the details of the photoelectric effect come out differently depending on whether light consists of particles or waves. If it’s waves, the energy contained in one of those waves should depend only on its amplitude–that is, on the intensity of the light. Other factors, like the frequency, should make no difference. So, for example, red light and ultraviolet light of the same intensity should knock out the same number of electrons, and the maximum kinetic energy of both sets of electrons should also be the same. Decrease the intensity, and you should get fewer electrons, flying out more slowly; if the light is too faint, you shouldn’t get any electrons at all, no matter what frequency you’re using.” [17]
Interactions of frequencies are up the Fourier alley while interactions of amplitudes is considered multiplication?
John Ellis of CERN stated, “…clarifications of the magnitude of the vacuum energy and its equation of state are of crucial importance for fundamental physics, as well as for cosmology.” [11]
Sitting between the Classical and Quantum perspectives of the Universe is the concept Schrödinger’s cat attempted to convey.
If a perspective is singular it is not the right perspective. The correct perspective would view it all and be the same perspective to see it all from the smallest scale to the largest.
The customary search for a unified theory has a tough measurement to adhere to. It implies the joining of Classical and Quantum theories into one theory that explains both and requires the attempt to merge perspectives by applying only one. The ‘one’ applied can be either Classical or Quantum theories or it can be a completely new theory.
ENERGY CHARGE STATES
“Energy states” has meant electromagnetic polarity. Without it the search for a ‘quantum computer’ (spin) would be without its computational power as the infamous super-position would not be possible to fanaticize about let alone calculate. Probabilities creep in like they were real things and take over a concept not intended to be taken literally.
While ‘energy’ has been described by its qualities, which have become the understanding; ‘energy’, thanks publicly to cosmology, is now known to be something else. ‘Energy’ is known to be different as well as familiar. It has qualities in one form that are familiar and qualities in another form that are upside down to familiar.
The observation of that other upside down ‘energy’ was made on October 11, 1992 in Greenwood, Arkansas.
In initial experiments carried out at the time the initial measurements taken were of voltages from E. (Yes, F, is a CDS cell, but it can be nearly any form of inductive resistor.
A is the positive terminal of the fully charged 1.5volt battery. B is the negative terminal of the fully charged 1.5volt battery. F is the controlling variable represented by a CDS cell in initial testing (see below). E is the output of the circuit measured.
In connecting this circuit to cause the experiment there are two opposing connection schemes (choice of method of measurement).
In the ‘typical’ APE connection scheme the positive measurement probe is connected to E with the negative measurement probe connected to B.
In the atypical PE connection scheme, the positive measurement probe is connected to E, with the negative measurement probe connected to B. A far better explanation using slightly different terms is recommended reading in, “Exploring The Use Of NPN, PNP and BIPOLAR Transistors in the Neutronics Dynamic System”, by Ronald G. Spencer, PhD.; available at EnticyPress.com.
The controlling variable can be any form of closure between the terminals represented by connections to B and C as long as the circuit remains closed in the minimum variable (non-zero), which, in the case of electromagnetic charge is a near ‘neutral’ condition, hence the term, “Neutronics”..
In replicating this experiment, the experimenter will notice the variable afforded by F is not invasive in the APE scheme, and results in 0 volts from E as connected in the APE scheme, but when connected in the PE scheme results in a robust variable range of voltages.
“In the last decade, three new discoveries have awoken cosmologists to the possibility that one of their key assumptions about the composition and behavior of the universe might be wrong. While evidence for a flat universe and the inflationary theory has grown, a new element that breaks the chain of logic between inflation, geometry and destiny has been added. That element is ‘dark energy’.” [1]
“First, a census of the total matter density of the universe has revealed that it adds up to considerably less than expected. Cosmologists have known for decades that the sum of all the ordinary or “baryonic” matter – that is all the matter made of protons and neutrons – is only about 5% of the critical value predicted for a flat universe. Numerous measurements, dating as far back as the 1930s, have indicated that there must be other invisible or “dark” matter in the universe, to explain, for example, how stars remain in rapid orbit around galaxies and how galaxies orbit around galaxy clusters.” [1]
“This dark matter might consist of exotic new elementary particles suggested by various unified theories of particle physics, and it might add up to the missing 95% needed to reach the critical density. However, a series of diverse measurements have converged on the common conclusion that while some “exotic” dark matter exists, it adds up to less than half of the critical density. (Some baryonic matter, such as that in asteroids or brown dwarfs in distant galaxies, does not shine and is therefore “dark”, but its density is insignificant compared with exotic dark matter.)” [1]
“How can it be that the matter density is only one-third of the critical value, yet the universe is flat? Does this mean that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is wrong? Most likely not. By the mid-1990s, based on the results of various observations, several groups, including Jeremiah Ostriker of Princeton University and Paul J Steinhardt, foresaw the problem and pointed to its resolution. The missing two-thirds of the critical density might consist of an exotic form of “dark energy”, quite distinct from dark matter in that it does not cluster under the influence of an attractive gravitational force to form galaxies and large-scale structure. Hence, the total energy density could add up to the critical value, consistent with the evidence for a flat universe, but any census of the matter density would only find one-third of the critical value.” [1]
“Although cosmologists can be justly proud of having a model that fits a dazzling array of observations, they cannot rest for long. A new mystery immediately arises. What is the dark energy that composes two-thirds of the present energy in the universe?” [1]
“One fact we know about the dark energy is that it has negative pressure: cosmic acceleration can only occur if the pressure is sufficiently negative. The reason for this is found in general relativity, which tells us that energy and momentum, and therefore pressure, all gravitate. (Indeed, astronomers in the well-established technique known as gravitational lensing exploit the deflection of light by gravity.) The strength of this gravitational force is determined by rho + 3P, where rho is the energy density (including all forms of energy) and P is the pressure.” [1]
“When we apply this to the universe, we find that a ubiquitous energy substance with negative pressure causes space to repel itself: every point in space flees from its neighbors and the cosmic expansion accelerates. The bottom line for quintessence is that its pressure must be negative enough to overcome the attractive gravitational force of all the energy density in the universe.” [1]
And that deduction is where the understanding of the opposite of 1 is necessary and the knowledge that 1 is a non-zero value, which represents the minimum quantity by which to qualify as something rather than something more.
The opposite of the energy we observe as positive is anti-positive to us but is the vast majority of the Universe to everywhere else.
These ‘energy states’ are upside down to each other.
The two states are: (‘dark energy’ or ‘vacuum energy’,) we shall refer to as Positive Energy (PE), since it is the dominant energy state in the universe) and (permeating energy or what electronics refers to as positive energy) we shall refer to as Anti-Positive Energy (APE) as it is the nonzero opposite of PE.
Our ‘matter’ Universe is comprised of the non-zero repulsive balance of PE and the clustered density of gravitational attraction from the APE itself.
Interaction between APE and PE states in relation to other clustered frequencies results in Gravity, a compelling result of an interaction of energy states in inverse proportion to properties.
In APE, North and South poles of a magnet attract each other while like poles repel each other. In PE North and South poles repel each other while like poles attract each other. It is this difference that keeps the states opposing and supportive of each other, simultaneously.
“The negative pressure is sufficient to explain why dark energy is spatially uniform on average, but why don’t small in homogeneities grow in, for instance, the dense regions at the centers of galaxies? There is not a unique answer to this question, but it seems likely that the particles composing this dark energy are so light and relativistic that nothing short of a black hole can disturb them.” [1]
“…the particles composing this dark energy…”: is where the interpretation goes wrong.
The presence of a non-zero value opposing energy state in all APE matter is evident in an extension of the schematic provided in “The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing” [18]. If you employ the schematic do so as instructed in that paper and record your results, then replace the battery power source with a known depleted battery, a battery with 0 volts and repeat your tests. It only takes the non-zero value to make it work and it will not draw current in the process unless it is decohered through intereference.
‘Energy’ is a very portable term: “the capacity to do work (or produce heat).” [1]
The inverse, would be the incapacity to do work and produce heat. The combination of the two make up observable mass.
For us to measure the incapactative value we must ‘bind’ the capacitative value in a near neutral ‘non-zero’ condition, and then measure the function properly to observe the result.
This diagram shows a crude rendition of the non-zero PE permeating the APE wave and the non-zero APE permeating the PE wave, naturally this is not to scale:
The problem with this visualization is the perspective of the manner in which we represent waves. Contemplate for a moment that if our observation perspective of waves was relevant to our method of observation we would be able to arrive at the test results the aformentioned circuit reference does result in, and we would realize that our perspective of the wave is from the ‘side-view’ when we are actually looking from the top down. Look at an oscilloscope. Imagine the perspective difference if the wave one looks at is doing the ‘wave’ side to side instead of up and down.
If you lived in the PE charge state where energy was PE you would observe a non-zero charge state of APE, which would be just the presence of the APE charge without amplitude. It would be referred to as minimum pressure. It would be just enough opposing charge state to cause the formation of ‘dark matter’. Matter made up of PE ‘dark energy’ and permitted to form by the interaction with APE energy.
As we live in the APE energy charge state, matter is permitted to form by the interaction with the PE non-zero (no amplitude) energy charge state. From that interaction we have mass, the forces of nature and the difficulty in discerning cause.
THE EXPONENTIAL UNIVERSE
Initially, “According to the Empedocles, a Greek philosopher, scientist and healer who lived in Sicily in the fifth century B.C., all matter is comprised of four “roots” or elements of earth, air, fire and water. Fire and air are outwardly reaching elements, reaching up and out, whereas earth and water turn inward and downward. “ [10]
Physics has identified the following elements of existence (much the same as the original assumption of the four elements prior to ‘quintessence’.)
WEAK FORCE:
“…a fundamental physical force that governs interactions between hadrons and leptons (as in the emission and absorption of neutrinos) and is responsible for particle decay processes (as beta decay) in radioactivity, that is 105 times weaker than the strong force, and that acts over distances smaller than those between nucleons in an atomic nucleus — called also weak interaction, weak nuclear force” [1]
STRONG FORCE:
“…a fundamental physical force that acts on hadrons and is responsible for the binding together of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus and for processes of particle creation in high-energy collisions and that is the strongest known fundamental physical force but acts only over distances comparable to those between nucleons in an atomic nucleus — called also strong interaction, strong nuclear force.” [1]
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE:
“… a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions between charged particles which occur because of their charge and for the emission and absorption of photons, that is about 100 times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over atomic and molecular distances — called also electromagnetism” [1]
GRAVITY:
“a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 1039 times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter — called also gravitation, gravitational force” [1]
ELECTROWEAK
“…of, relating to, or being the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force” [1]
GRAND UNIFIED THEORY:
“…any of several theories that seek to unite in a single mathematical framework the electromagnetic and weak forces with the strong force or with the strong force and gravity — called also grand unification theory” [1]
THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
“a theory of everything (TOE) is a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. TOE is sometimes also called a ‘supergrand’ unified theory.” [19]
The graphic below shows the interaction and pathway of expected theory development. One thing leads to another. But why do those things lead to each other and why is the graphic drawn this way?
style=”max-width:300px !Important”
To cause the correct perspective of the graphic, just as we corrected the perspective of the wave, we need turn it around, and show its connections.
CONTINUING
This paper is in the process of being compiled. Additional parts will be added and amendments will be made to the entire body of work, over time. Reviews, critiques, and general comments are welcome. This paper has not been touched in a very long time.
REFERENCES, GLOSSARY, FOOTNOTES
[1] Dark Energy Fills The Cosmos: Paul Preuss, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory published in Science-Beat, June 1999.
[1] Quintessence, November 2000; PhysicsWeb Robert R Caldwell and Paul J Steinhardt http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8
[1] Merriam-Webster
[4] AIP http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p07b.htm
[5] Classic Waveshapes and Spectra, Reginald Bain, http://www.csounds.com/ezine/spectra/
[6] The Schrödinger Equation: http://www.adi.uam.es/Docs/Knowledge/Fundamental_Theory/quantrev/node7.html#secSEq
[7] AIP http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
[8] AIP http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm
[9] Paul Budnik http://www.mtnmath.com/cat.html
[10] Paul Budnik http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-3.html
[11] Vacuum Energy: A Naturalness Challenge by John Ellis of CERN.
[12] Importance of Discovering the Nature of Dark Energy by Steven Weinberg Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin.
[13] Genesis of Eden Diversity Encyclopedia, linked from The Papers Of Chris King, http://www.dhushara.com/book/brainp/hard/hard.htm
[14] Wolfram Research http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AdditiveInverse.html
[15] Wolfram Research Multiplicative Inverse http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MultiplicativeInverse.html
[16] The Rest Is History, New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/therest.jsp
[17] Complexity Theory Peter Bro Miltersen, BRICS http://www.brics.dk/Activities/00/Retreat/Retreat001018-bromille-comp.pdf
[18] The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing, Hempfling, http://www.EnticyPress.com
[19] http://www.BrainyQuote.Com
[10] http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/assets/universe.jpg
[11] http://www.math.utah.edu/~gold/gif/quantum/quantum.gif
[12] http://strc.herts.ac.uk/tp/info/areas/w_np/cohe.jpeg
[13] http://asc.harvard.edu/fellows/viewgraphs/2002/verde/img16.gif
[14] No Escape, The Truth About Black Holes http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/sciencebackground.html
[15] The Schrödinger Equation Notes on General Chemistry http://www.bu.edu/chemistry/undergrad/courses/102-spring-2002/supplements/SchrodingerEquationIs.pdf
[16] So What Is String Theory Then? http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html
[17] Planck’s Constant and the Energy of a Photon http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html
[18] Mattel® Inc. Uno® http://www.mattel.com
[19] TOE http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=theory+of+everything&go=Go
[10] Elemental: The Four Elements: http://www.webwinds.com/myth/elemental.htm
[11]
Glossary:
Fourier series: an infinite series in which the terms are constants multiplied by sine or cosine functions of integer multiples of the variable and which is used in the analysis of periodic functions [1]
LAW: When two equals oppose, the result will be, a new equal of both oppositions in their proportions
Footnotes:
+* “In 1925, Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg independently developed the new quantum theory. Schrödinger’s method involves partial differential equations, whereas Heisenberg’s method employs matrices; however, a year later the two methods were shown to be mathematically equivalent. Most textbooks begin with Schrödinger’s equation, since it seems to have a better physical interpretation via the classical wave equation. Indeed, the Schrödinger equation can be viewed as a form of the wave equation applied to matter waves.”[6]
+**