I have hypothesized a model of a universal field in terms of a quintessential form of basic energy field that is capable of systematically accounting for all known forms of energy and that underlies all energy transactions found to occur in nature. This quintessential form of energy has not yet been observed in any direct way, and may never be observed except possibly in indirect ways based upon its predictable effects upon other pattern phenomena that we can observe. The presupposition of such a field is necessary if we are to provide a coherent and complete theoretical model of the structure of physical reality underlying the organization of the total universe and that is sufficient for accounting for all known physical transactions in nature. 

Such a systematic accounting provides a basis for a model of physical dynamics that explains the process of change in a fundamental and universal way. Two or more photons for instance, that co-occur in the same field, interact in a simultaneous way in that field, produce a field pattern, and demonstrate behavior attributable to all co-occurring photons that cannot be attributed to any single photon alone. This kind of paradox about the essential nature of light can be resolved if we assume that light is interacting in a common shared field, causing perturbations in that field as well as in the light itself. The interesting thing about this kind of phenomenon is that the field effects appear to be instantaneous to the action of the propagating light, without a since of lag or delay expected in "cause and effect" kinds of sequences. The same kinds of field effects can be observed, for instance, in the observation of Einstein crosses as the result of gravitational lens effects upon starlight otherwise hidden by an intervening object in space, occurring over very vast distances.

 Accounting for such field effects and explaining them in terms of a basic hypothetical model of a universal background field occupies the major portion of the content of this text. Behind this though is an implicit, mostly unasked question of how does physical reality hang together, both in the very small sense and in the very large. How might our understanding of this kind of basic integration of the very small affect how we view the pattern of observation we find and infer about the very large? When we talk about physical integration, we refer to the question of how things hang together in a coordinate way, and do not fall simply fall apart, which is what one would logically expect if the only thing coming between things were a void, a vacuum, a sense of absolute nothingness.

The model of the universal field I propose is of course a hypothetical construct that therefore demands to be proven by some form of empirical substantiation, if it is to be taken seriously and be well received in the world. As a hypothetical construct it is by no means set permanently in stone. The systems-theoretic models I've been developing in relation to physical systems have emerged over the last few years, taken shape, and become significantly revised in both general outline as well as in substantial detail. Writing for me has been a necessary heuristic device for exploration and creative thinking.  As I grow older in years, but probably no wiser in my lessons, these kinds of critical-creative efforts, and these kinds of questions concerning our objective reality, become increasingly important and interesting to me to try to answer, in however an amateurish and illogical a manner.

Our closest synonym and cognitive correlate for such a universal background field is our concept of "space-time"--though I'm reluctant somehow to completely conflate and hence confuse the two sets of concepts. Einstein provided us a general model of space-time that was at once enlightening and fraught with ambiguity, for it was both empty and yet simultaneously with geometrical structure and other properties that we usually do not associate with something fundamentally empty. When we talk about space-time I'm not sure we are talking about the exact same thing as a universal background field, but then, the problem of space-time has not yet been conclusively or finally resolved or even that well-defined. It seems to have remained a concept very useful to our understanding of physical reality but in itself lacking precise outline or explanation.

My hesitation about calling space-time the universal background field rests mostly upon the suspicion that we really do not know how complex, or complexly stratified, such a thing as space-time may really be, if it is even a thing at all. If this is the case, is the universal field simply contained in the manifold of space-time, or is it better to state that space-time is primarily a kind of property attributable to the organization of the universal field. Equivocating about such seemingly minor differences might mean little in the grander scheme of things, but on the other hand getting our terms right from the start, or at least clear if not exactly right, may be the first step for successfully building a meaningful model of the basic structure of physical reality. No, elaborating proton structure, mesons, quarks, leptons alone does not seem to get at the basic structure of reality all that much. There is a creeping,  growing suspicion that these structures may not be fundamental at all, but really only intermediate like everything else seems to be.

The cosmological scale of the universe is so large, so vast, that there is very little in our earthbound experience to realistically compare with it and we can therefore scarcely begin to truly imagine its proportions or implications as a larger system, especially in terms of theoretical constructs or hypothetical models we may develop of it based upon a very limited view of the larger world. The numbers involved in our calculations and inventory reach soon the limit of our normal capacity for thinking about it.

The final verdict will not be soon delivered concerning the history, origin and physical disposition of the total universe, or even of the observable universe--that region of space that has fallen within the compass of our vision and capacity to see telescopically at great distances. We are at a state of knowledge that is defined more by the unknown of objective structures than any sense of certainty of subjective reference points.

To understand the total universe, we will have to understand the structure of reality that forms and defines its distribution and its developmental patterning. We are working on basic presuppositions in this regard that may or may not be really true in a universal sense. We can only do so by logical deductive extension of known principles and patterns derived from what we can observe, see and infer about reality, to what can be considered indirect and remote processes that are presumed to occur and exist in some contemporaneous sense, or that may have previously existed or occurred in some historical sense.

Given the fact that light travels at a known constant rate through space-time, and that we live bound within a shell of light that is observationally relative to our position on earth in space, the deeper we can see into space-time, the further back in time we can see, gaining a window upon the remote and distant past. But if what we are seeing of the universe is the remote and ever deeper past, what we are not seeing is the instantaneous cosmological present. 

What we cannot see is the current or contemporaneous distribution of the universe as it exists now, beyond our observational sphere. We invoke principles to assure ourselves that it is probably there, that it hasn't suddenly gone anywhere overnight, hasn't fallen apart or instantaneously disappeared. We figure inductively that because the positions of the stars in the observable heavens remain on course night after night, and have remain upon predictable pathways for millennia of human observation and recording, then the likelihood is great that they will all reappear tomorrow night, and the night after, and probably in a hundred or a thousand years. In fact, our science of astronomy depends upon these inductive conclusions.

A systems based model of the universe depends upon being able to deduce a cosmological construction of the universe that is in some sense contemporaneous and instantaneous, existing as a whole in the now, rather than merely as a feint set of images of the increasingly remote past. In fact, the presupposition of universal instantaneity and contemporaneousness is prerequisite in importance to the hypothesizing of such a systems-based cosmological model. Though we cannot directly observe such a contemporaneous model, we can possibly infer something of its structure and sense of order based upon what we can observe and presume to be true about the universal structure of reality as this is encountered in a local sense. Our presupposition of what may or may not be universal remains of course to be proven in any empirical sense, and may ultimately never be proven in the manner we wish good sound scientific knowledge to unfold.

Our first and foremost presupposition is that of the cosmological principle, and this is an important one for several reasons. The cosmological principle states simply two sets of premises--1. physical patterns and processes found to occur locally, can be presumed to occur universally, baring discovery of any new patterns and processes, and 2., there is no larger isotropic or directional order to the larger structure universe, but the universe is defined stochastically and randomly in a basic sense. I would include an extension of this principle to include a third premise: 3. there is no necessary pre-determined developmental order of the total universe in the larger state-path trajectory of the long run, such that similar sets of processes found to occur in the here and the now, were probably similar to the sets of processes that hypothetically occurred in the then and there of the remote past.

Primarily, we invoke this principle to be able to render the inference that the structure of reality as we encounter it locally, is the same structure of reality that exists simultaneously everywhere in the universe. Hence, if we are able to examine for instance the structure of space-time in our own Solar System, and derive basic deductive conclusions about its pattern and properties, then we can infer that this same structure applies in a basic sense in all other parts of the universe at the same time. Change processes that can be assumed to be occurring here in a basic sense can be presumed to occur elsewhere in a similar way.

In developing a model for the structure of reality and for the total universe, I have adopted a systems based approach, which is unusual, with the implication being that the structure of reality and the universe as a whole defines some kind of large system, or set of systems, that exhibit certain predictable properties and patterns of relationship. I find a systems-based model of cosmology and physical reality to be a very useful heuristic framework for rethinking things theoretically upon a number of levels. 

We can infer the applicability and validity of adopting such a systems-based model to the construction of a cosmological model and structural model of fundamental physical reality by our understanding that natural reality appears to be self-organizational in terms best described as systems, with attendant emergent properties, at all levels of phenomenal description. These models have been successfully applied for instance to human social systems and to biological systems, and hence it seems overdue to apply the same models, albeit in modified form, to an understanding of physical processes and patterns as well.

As a systems based model we expect to find some kind of recurrence of structure, reproduction of formal patterns of organization, the occurrence of certain boundary-maintaining mechanisms, and the operation of emergent properties serving to identify it as a system. We do not expect only an historical account of a single historical narrative of events that led from some hypothesized beginning until now, disguising the pattern structures that underlay any developmental sequences and periodic cycles that did occur.

More generally, we are caught in a conundrum, because we must define the total universe not as a system contained in some larger environment or a super-system, but as the sum total of the environment itself, or as a meta-state system that contains all things within it. This sort of turns the conventional systems model approach upon its head, and requires us to extend this model to encompass an accounting of systems context, or what can be called a meta-systems model. 

Thus, development of a cosmological model of physical reality serves two purposes at once. The first is the elucidation of possibly hidden aspects and relationships of the structure of physical reality in shaping our universe, and the second is providing an demonstration and instantiation of a real form of meta-state system by which to elaborate a meta-systems approach in a more systematic and coherent manner.

The model of the Big Bang is that of an original cosmic egg. This model poses for us a dilemma of a horizon that we cannot move beyond. We are left to assume as being true that there was a near instantaneous cosmological miracle, almost an active of divine creation, during which all the structures and processes that we observe today through our telescopes were forged. There was no previous time, and no structure beyond the egg itself, and, even worse, no clear explanation of how the egg came about in the first place, or the processes that led to the development of this egg based especially upon any processes we can observe today. 

I find the conception of the cosmic egg and the hot big bang model to fundamentally defy and deny a systems based approach to the problem, and to defy as well by implication the cosmological principle upon which a sound cosmological model is based by logical inference and extension of known and observable properties. The presupposition of a cosmic egg entails that we think up new sets of properties and processes to explain what cannot be explained by known or observable rules of operation of the contemporaneous cosmos.

I have an intuitively-based prejudice that the structure of the total universe is far, far larger and far, far longer in duration of time, than we prefer to admit on the basis of our contemporary and predominant theories of a cosmic egg and hot big bang. The state-path trajectory of the total universe, as a whole self-containing meta-system, may be by deduction far older and far larger than our conservative estimates permit. 

We should not be talking about billions of light-years, but probably, at least, in the trillions. If anthropological time, historical time, can be defined in terms of thousands of years, or millennia, and biological time can be written in terms of millions of years, and geological time in terms of billions of years, then I would suspect it wise to conclude that cosmological time should be considered in increments of trillions of years. To merely extend a geological model based upon estimates of the age of the earth and the solar system to deduce the age of the entire universe, is to possibly ignore a critical point--the larger the region we seek to comprehend, the greater the time frame we probably encompass.

A systems-based model of the universe thus comes to focus upon the fundamental structure of reality in basic ways. I have a prejudice about this, that the universal field theory physicists have been seeking since Einstein's first mathematical formulations of relativity, will come in the form of a set of equilibrium equations that demonstrate, among other things, the equivalence of all forms of energy to one another through certain specific transformation pathways, and the equivalence and equilibrium of all these forms of energy with a fifth, quintessential form of fundamental energy that is basic to all the others and inter-mediative of all the transformation relations that occur between the other forms of energy. 

Our understanding of this basic model will in turn permit us to elaborate a larger general model of the space-time construct and its geometro-dynamic qualities in multiple dimensions, and will provide in turn a fundamental accounting of all sub-atomic structures and processes that underlie the organization of matter.

It will finally provide us with a composite view of the total universe as a self-constitutive, self-organized meta-state system, one based upon the cosmological principle, i.e., the logical extension of known and observable principles, as well as a probable understanding of the likely state-path trajectory and early developmental history of the total universe.

The basic constraint in the construction of our systems based model is that we need to infer probable explanations of remote and directly unobservable phenomena and patterns derived from known pattern process that we can observe and deduce from observable phenomena. We are not at liberty to construct models that are based primarily upon the invocation of pattern processes that are our own hypothetical formulation and that are not derivable from known or observable/inferable structures. We do have the liberty to fill in gaps with hypothetical constructs, like filling in the missing pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, based upon the context provided by known and inferable evidence, but we cannot look at cumulous clouds in the sky, imagining faces or any form we wish to see, and thereby conclude that the forms we imagine exist in the clouds.

An example of this that jumps to mind is the explanation of the origin of the earth itself. Its formidable iron core and its primary composition of iron suggest that its basic minerals had to of been forged in some star, the only known source of iron or any other element, known to us. Iron is known as one of the most radioactively stable by-products of stellar exhaustion, due to its tremendous half-life. The only known source of iron is in stellar furnaces. To presuppose therefore that the iron contained in the earth in considerable quantities had derived from some other source than that of a stellar system, is to invoke patterns that are not there and that do not fit the available evidence. 

This causes problems with our models of the universe and of our solar system though, requiring us to rethink its history and basic structure. If the earth's minerals were ultimately forged in some now extinct sun, then this would make the earth's substantive content far older in time than previously thought, and it would render a model of the formation of the solar system by gravitational capture by the current sun of otherwise free-floating material debris that was the consequence of a previous history of stellar development. The current sun, at some early state of its trajectory through the galaxy and the larger reaches of space, may have past through a relatively dense debris field constituted by the leftover remains of extinct stars and their by-products. Many of these extinct stars may have collided with one another, or exploded, producing a range of debris of various sizes, as well as enormous clouds of interstellar dust particles.

A young and powerful sun, passing in the vicinity of such fields, would capture a proportion of this debris, and possibly in the process initiate a pattern of planetary formation as gravitational subsystems, like epi-cycles, emerged from the spontaneous gravitational reorganization of the debris along the principle plane of gravitation of the sun, the entire solar system eventually achieving a stable set of cycles of its current trajectories. 

That the early solar system may have existed at one time in a debris field more densely and chaotically organized than the current distribution of matter is evident for instance in the pock marked face of our own moon, with a great many impact craters being seen but few new impact craters known in the history of our observations of the moon. Of course, the jury must still be out on this last kind of point, because our history of observation has been so brief compared to the geological cycles of time the developmental histories represented by the earth and the moon. We do not know the randomness or rarity of an event like a meteorite impact or asteroid collision. They appear to be fairly random by contemporary standards, but they may not have occurred so infrequently billions of years before now.

As with this one example of the earth and the moon and the early formation of the solar system, so to with our understanding of our galaxy and the larger structural formations we observe in deep space. Galaxies, once formed, may be very old, indeed truly ancient and extremely stable configurations. The life cycle of our own sun may have been repeated in the Milky Way numerous times before the formation of our own sun took place, providing the leftover material for the eventual formation of our solar system. And solar systems are proving to be fairly common in our neighborhood of stars, and by extension of the cosmological principle, to other systems of stars in our galaxy, and by greater leap of faith, to other galaxies.

We might thus conclude as well that a great deal of the "dark matter" deduced to exist in the galaxy may be in fact the truly unobservable dark matter of leftover debris that has accumulated over the passage of a great span of cosmological time, and that may be the hallmarks, the signs, of a very old and very stable multi-stellar system. 

From this we might deduce a general cosmological rule of thumb--the larger the structural formations in question, the greater the time spans involved in terms of periodic cycles or larger developmental life-spans or total state-path trajectories from beginning to end. If we can also conclude as well that the smaller the structure, the shorter the average time span involved, then from this also we would expect most subatomic particles to have life times that are short and sweet, and, going from the very small to the largest scales imaginable, we can almost conclude that the very largest scale of the universe may be so long lived as to be almost if not entirely eternal.

If we are to carry our argument one step further, we might surmise that in the life-history of our Milky Way galaxy, there was an earlier period of time in which the average density of stars was much greater than it may be at this time, and that the number of stars were far greater and on average smaller in size than they were later. The formation of great many smaller stars may have had unusual gravitational effects in early systems. The earliest phases of star formation of our galaxy as well would probably have been bereft of any previously formed debris, and hence there would have been very few if any early solar systems with planetary formations. It is known as well that smaller stars, on average, are much longer lived and more stable than their larger cousins, and hence we would expect that the early phase of the Milky Way galaxy was of a fairly lengthy duration, and possibly of several durations length with a succession of generations of smaller star formations.

Looking down the other end of the magical deductive telescope into the hypothetical future of the Milky Way, we might hypothesize the emergence of larger and larger stars, and, along with such formations, the eventual occurrence of increasing numbers of planetary solar systems, the increasing frequency of occurrence of black holes, and the eventual emergence of giant or monster black holes that act like galactic vacuum cleaners eventually sucking everything into its invisible X-ray producing maw. How stable such large black hole configurations may be is in question--they are presumed to be fairly permanent structures, and if so, then we have another source of a great deal of "dark matter" concentrated in very small areas of space for very long periods of time.

Since we really do not know what goes on inside a black hole, I'm inclined to think that there is a redistribution of energy derived from totally disintegrated matter in the form of gravitational radiation in massive amounts. Whereas a typical sun may produce new matter and energy through gravitation concentration at lower levels of intensity, largely to be ejecta into the surrounding environment of local space, the typical black hole may actually consume matter and not produce it, re-broadcasting its energy in a fundamental basic form back out across the universe.

Universal Dynamics

All real systems are subject to change. The constraint of change is what is universal to all such systems. A "system" in fact may be considered a thing, or set of things, embodying consistent relationships, that is subject to change over time. The constraint of change is what distinguishes what is real from what is not real. This change by a system is usually mediated by means of some kind of boundary-maintenance mechanism that allows, among other things, the transport of energy between the external and the internal environments maintained by the system in question. Put another way, nothing that is real can remain permanently changeless. Usually, systems change in non-entropic ways, or what Ludwig von Bertalanffy defined as negentropy. A system changing toward greater entropy (greater randomization, hence disorder) is one that is in the process of disintegrating as a self-organized system. 

It comes as something as a paradox to define a system on the basis of the change dynamics that affects the system, when we tend to understand and comprehend systems on the basis of their relative stasis and resistance to change over time, and their endurance as stable patterns through time. But even apparently stable systems involve change dynamics on a regular basis, even if these dynamics are part of recurrent cycles that constitute components of the larger system. Another way of putting this is that systems involve the organization of change, and this organization of change must be relatively deterministic and non-random enough to achieve the synergy of dynamic pattern we associate with systems of a given kind. 

A tornado is a kind of self-organizing weather system that involves the convergence of various forces of wind and storm clouds, and the formation of a funnel cloud that may last only seconds or could continue for many minutes in a stable way. The components of such a system are dynamic and changing continuously in recurrent cycles, fueled as these are by the predominant directions, temperatures and speeds of the countervailing winds. All tornados exhibit common features that define them as a kind of specific weather event, even if they vary considerably in size, shape of the funnels produced, and duration of their funnel activity.

Upon another level entirely, if we look at the universe as a total, meta-state system, then a model of the dynamic state universe is one that is based on the idea that the universe is constituted by a fundamental form of energy that is boundless and that has undergone continuous transformations over time and space, i.e., it has continuously changed forever.

Change is a universal phenomenon that is both spatial and temporal in its manifestations. We measure change in both terms of spatial and temporal dimensions, and these measurements provide us a basis for our objective view of the world and a foundation for our scientific understanding of reality.

Thus, we may claim that a valid theory of reality is one that rests upon a basic theory of physical dynamics, or rather of fundamental change processes as they occur in reality. A theory of physical dynamics would comprehend several sets of ideas, among other things. It would entail a corollary theory of physical mechanics and statics. It would entail an accounting of thermodynamics, or the dynamics of heat exchange, which is characteristic of all real systems. It would entail as well an accounting of informational dynamics, or the relative increase/decrease of the sense of integrative or operational order of a system, measured in terms of its relative efficiency of pattern transmission/transformation over time. It would entail as well an accounting for what I claim are universal gravitational dynamics, all systems containing some form of mass that is subject to the constraints of space-time and motion. We may also discover various levels and hence kinds of physical dynamics, depending upon the level of analysis we adopt, just as we distinguish for instance classical mechanics with modern quantum mechanics when referring to different levels of event structure in physical reality. 

We can say at the outset that all physical change in reality is both non-linear and continuous, even though state-changes in systems considered as whole entities may be perceived as stadial and developmental transformations of phases, and even though we may measure many kinds of change phenomena, especially under experimental conditions, in linear formulas that isolate primary determinants and their direct effects.

A basic theory of how all things change in a physical sense is one problem set that is yet to be theoretically resolved. We can claim on a fundamental level that all change involves the transmission and transformation of contemporaneous states of energy over time, which carries with it a reorganization of information that is tied to the patterning produced by this energy distribution field. 

Energy thus is seen as being distributed in an instantaneous or contemporaneous manner over a field. This distribution of energy is uneven, and the energy found in such a field is understood to take any number of different possible forms or transformation states. 

We cannot isolate in an exact and non-relative sense either what an "instantaneous" state is, for whatever we specify as a minimal duration of the event structure, must possibly incorporate some degree of transformative change, and hence we are faced with something like Zeno's paradoxical arrow or Heraclitus' flow of the river. 

Given these considerations, I propose therefore the following paradigm of energy dynamics:

1. Energy is a basic, irreduceable state of physical reality.

    a. There is a basic, quintessential form/state of energy of which all other forms of energy are derivative transformations. We do not yet know what this fundamental state of energy is, though we presume that it constitutes both thermodynamic and gravitational forms of energy as alternate and complementary states.

    b. All particulate states or states of matter that we may isolate or identify in space-time, are derivative composite states ultimately composed of this basic state of energy.

2. Energy cannot be made or destroyed.

    a. There is a net-energy balance in the universe, and the exchange of energy involves a universal equilibrium.

3. Energy can only be transformed from one state to some alternate state. The states that various forms of recognizable energy take are the specific sets of properties associated with those particular transformation states that occur under specific sets of physical conditions.

4. Energy is dynamic and the transformation of energy is continuous.

a. Energy itself cannot be contained or kept in an indefinite static state.

5. There is no minimal duration of time of fundamental energy states.

a. Energy is forever and always instantaneous, and cannot exist in a non-instantaneous or relatively permanent (i.e., unchanged state).

6. Time is therefore relative to the scale of measure of the event structure we employ, though the passage and occurrence of time, as an event structure, is inherent to the fundamental structure of change itself. 

We may hypothesize further that all energy transformations may occur within a paradigm of non-linear dynamics associated with equilibriating systems and non-linear control structures. These are the familiar four possibilities represented by the following kind of table based on convergence/divergence:

The foundation of metasystems science is the description of complex hybrid natural systems as these can be found to unfold.

I am interested in the emergence of complex, dynamic equilibrium states that can be said to characterize the paradigm of possible state-path trajectories available to any self-organized system occurring in the natural universe in real time. I am also interested in the control factors and or mechanisms that serve as primary determinants of such states.

We can recognize and organize natural systems into four general characteristic phases of their state path trajectory: 1. Beginning; 2. Growing; 3. Stasis or self-limiting; 4. Ending phases. Also transition phases marking the start, stop and intermediate transitions may be identified. These four phases can be characterized by the possible bifurcations of the limit cycle of such systems:

1. a simple weak focus

2. a simple semistable limit cycle;

3. a separatrix loop to a simple saddle-node; and

4. A separatrix loop to a saddle at which the divergence of the vector field is non-zero.

Another way of saying this last is to claim that time is relative to the scale at which we measure change.

Before we go further with our paradigm of energy dynamics, we must ask whether or not energy is a basic cause or an effect of change itself. Is change the result of the transformational dynamics of energy, or is energetic transformation the effect of change. Such a question should really be seen from a systems standpoint as a false hen or egg kind of dilemma. Change is intrinsic to energy transformation, and energy transformation is the intrinsic manifestation of change.

But we are perhaps begging the basic question of what exactly is the basic form of energy and the transformation states it can manifest under varying conditions, empirically and observationally we can describe a great many alternative energy states that may be considered the product of special transformations of energy systems, and at all levels of physical description and measurement.

What is energy itself? The most common association of energy is cause and effect, and we ascribe some form of energy with the power to make something happen, to induce change, whether this change is proximate or remote from the original source or stimulus of the event. Cause and effect are really another way of referring to the observation of a specific change event, or a transformation that we associate with energy.

There is one other set of properties that seems to be universal for change and energy transformation, and is reflected in the fundamental mechanical constraints of space and time. Things move forward in only one temporal direction, and things can move in only one specific spatial set of vectors at a single instant. These constraints are really four-dimensional in space-time, as we cannot clearly separate the non-instantaneous movement through space from the non-instantaneous passage of time. Time itself is irreversible, even if the transformation events that constitute time are in a sense cyclical and apparently reversible in terms of the exchange dynamics of energy. This suggests that all energy transformation states gain manifest expression in both space and time, or four-dimensionally in space-time, and this must be a basic characteristic of the fundamental form of energy that we hypothesize.

There is another aspect of dynamic energy that is more telling about its basic nature--energy is non-static because it is dynamic, or dynamic because it is non-static. In other words, we must distinguish between potential energy, or energy of a system in a stable rest state, from actual energy which is energy that is instantaneously realized and manifest in the actions of a system. All energy is dynamic and hence it cannot be captured unless it is used to construct a potential energy system in a stable rest state. We cannot hold real energy in our hand or keep it in our pocket--we can only hold the means to convert or transform potential energy of a "loaded" system to active energy.

Before expanding and elaborating upon our paradigm of fundamental energy dynamics, I would make the following statements:

1. No real system can exist in a completely energiless or energy free state, i.e. in a state of a total energy vacuum. All systems are "connected" to the larger order of reality through the exchange and sharing of energy relations. All real systems are composed of energy, and hence, by definition, cannot be energiless.

a. A spin-off of 1 is to assert that a complete energy vacuum, or a total energy free state, cannot exist in the real universe.

b. Space-time is therefore an energy construct of a basic form.

2. No real system can exist in a state of complete changelessness or what we may refer to as absolute (non-relative) rest.

a. There cannot be a vacuum in physical reality that is free of the change dynamics that we associate with the transformation of alternative energy states.

b. We may associate alternative transformational states to the Space-time continuum.

We may speculate that in the possible alternative transformation of basic energy states, some energy states are more likely to occur than others, and some energy states are relatively more stable in form and duration than others, such stability being attributable to the maintenance of state-reproductive cycles upon a basic level.

All such possible energy states are bound within a paradigm of fundamental energy dynamics the govern the possible range of energy transformations that may be achieved.

There appear in the differential distribution of energy states in the space-time continuum fundamental differentials of relative density or concentration/distribution of energy per both space and time. Energy appears to exhibit basic alternate properties such as those of attraction/repulsion, color, charge, spin.

Hypothetically, all these properties may ultimately be systematically reducible to a fundamental set of alternate properties, that I speculate are those of relative spin, or curvature, speed or rate of rotation, and specific instantaneous direction. I speculate that each isolatable energy event upon a given level of analysis will also carry possibly a fundamental measure of "relation" to the instantaneous environment of its immediate occurrence.

There appear at any given level of analysis and observation of event phenomena, a systematic set of fundamental alternative transformation states to which basic characteristic properties may be associated relative to that specific level, and which do not occur, except in possibly analogous form, at any other given level of analytical observation and measurement.

Periodic rates and cycles associated with energy transformations on a given level of observation appear to be size and scale dependent: i.e., relative to the scale of event structure.

There appears to be no minimum nor maximum scale or size threshold. The fundamental energy is infinitely reducible to smaller and smaller states, and infinitely constructive of larger and larger physical systems.

The universal fundamental energy field is universally instantaneous or contemporaneous in its occurrence--upon a fundamental level it occurs simultaneously everywhere at the same time, and upon this level it appears to be outside of time or change.

Given these kinds of considerations, I will venture a model of the universal energy field, of which this text is mainly about, as being upon a fundamental level a continuous energy field that permits of no discontinuities upon a fundamental level, though we may find that upon a fundamental level it exists in a greater number of dimensions that we conventionally associate with space-time. It appears to be fluid dynamic in the sense that its patterning and relative concentrations are continuously shifting and changing, even if it is capable of maintaining more stable structures of larger scale--fundamental energy flows through these larger structures continuously, even if the basic perceivable shape, the dimensional coordinates of these structures, remain relatively unaltered.

We can associate larger tendencies of this structure in relation to the local and relative states that may occur within its fold--local energy distributions over the long run and in the large will tend towards even, random distribution according to the standard cosmological principle. The universal laws of thermodynamics are derivable from this hypothesis. The system is open and negentropic, characterized by irreversible entropy, in the sense that it may support any number of larger formations of structures of any scale for indefinite periods of time. Therefore it is probably infinite in extent and distribution. All real systems that occur are relative to this universal energy field, and are constrained within it in basic mechanical and dynamic ways. All real systems are therefore self-organizing subsystems of the universal field, that occur as the result of non-deterministic factors. There is no sense of predetermination in the primary causes of the system or any subsystem. All real systems tend to be in the long run and in the large underdetermined systems, and in the long run and in the large tend toward infinite complication, which is equivalent to chaos.

If we were to try to imagine this universal energy field, it would be like a huge piece of rubber, of infinite thickness and infinite breadth and width, extending in every direction. It may fold and bend locally in all directions, and thus be transformed, even if it remains in a stable homologous pattern in its local texture. The densities of this rubber would very with its scale, from place to place, over a broad range from being the thinnest and most sparse of energy distributions (deep, deep, inter-gallactic space) to the thickest, densest formations imaginable (black hole super-matter). This huge piece of bendable rubber vibrates and reverberates, much like a string that is plucked on a musical instrument, and this vibration resonates in all directions from the source of its origination. This infinitely large piece of rubber is, from our standpoint, fluid dynamic in the sense that energy appears to move continuously through it, though this may be more an illusion of our own perception of the effects of the transformation of energy than the cause of such change events. It is fluid dynamic in the sense that we and the objects we see and encounter do move through it as if it were mostly transparent and empty, devoid of any "substance" we associate with matter.

We can imagine the basic model of the universal energy field, though we cannot at this point determine empirically its exact structure or the exact principles of its dynamics upon a fundamental level--I believe upon the most fundamental level its structure may be fundamentally indeterminate and uncertain except as a field that contains everything. It may be a structure that, like the zeroth entity I've hypothesized, may occur instantaneously at any point of space-time and recur at any other point in the universe. At that level it makes little difference to designate a point or string or some other structure or form as a basic unit with some observable set of properties--it becomes a cosmic broth, a cauldron from which variable sets of such structures may crystallize and, in time dissolve back again.

The Four Forces & Quintessential Forms of Energy

If we are to imagine a big bang, we cannot imagine this big bang as encompassing or containing the universal energy field, but merely as a transformational structure of energy contained within and encompassed by this field. We may thus imagine an endless number of big bang events. And if we are to hypothesize the contemporaneous expansion of the observable universe in all directions, then we must imagine this expansion to be occurring within the compass and structure of the universal field, and not to be the structure and compass of this field itself, unless we can hypothesize the field itself to be growing or enlarging itself on an astronomical scale that reaches a cumulative expansion rate of the speed of light.

But foremost if we are to hypothesize the existence of such an entity as a universal energy field, then we must also imagine this entity to be like a glass that contains all the things and energies and processes we observe in our universe, or infer to occur based upon our logic and our observations. We cannot really guess the shape or the structure of the glass except indirectly by measurement of the things contained within it, and their distribution and interaction and so forth. Thus our attention must turn to some of the most common and pervasive energy structures, states of matter and transformation states that we are aware of.

Foremost in the consideration of these substantive structures contained within the universal energy field are an accounting for thermodynamic or light energy on one hand, the strong and weak forces that are associated with subatomic levels of particle interaction, and gravitational force, which is still somewhat of a mystery. All four forces may be found in fact in association with subatomic interactions of fundamental particles, though the range and consequences of these interactions upon the universal field produced by these four forces varies dramatically. Associated with each force is a form of energy that is unique to that particular force and that accounts largely for the properties and consequences of the behavior of that force. Gravitation, though the weakest of the four forces, in fact has the widest sphere of effect and thus is the most pervasive and cumulatively powerful force to act upon the structure of the universe. Only light is second to it in terms of pervasiveness of the effects in helping to shape the observable or inferable structures of the universe, and it is in the relationships between light and gravitational energy that the greatest theoretical interest lies in being able to deduce any conclusive statements about the universal energy field.

Before proceeding, there are two points worth mentioning. First, from the standpoint of the observable effects of the different forces like light or gravitational energy, the hypothetical quintessential force associated with the universal energy field appears almost like negative energy, or a form of passive energy that only gains form and expression in an active state in one form or other of the four alternative energies. This may seem to contradict our earlier hypothesis of universal change and energy, that such energy may not be potential or passive in form, but I believe this contradiction is more apparent than real, as we cannot hold a complete accounting for universal change without a model of a fundamental dynamic energy force.

The second consideration is what I purport to be the complementariness of light and gravitational energy as alternative forms of energy, and that manner in which these forms of energy may interact, and, upon some level, be involved in reciprocal systems of transformation. Light obeys the principles of thermodynamics, but gravitational energy does not strictly obey the same principles, but appears to follow a set of principles, that I have referred to as gravitational dynamics, that appear at many points to be completely opposite in consequence to strictly thermodynamic systems. These discrepancies can only be accounted for if we hypothesize the mediation of some intermediate system of energy exchange, in a larger open meta-system structure that encompasses the thermodynamic and gravitational systems in question.

A third corollary consideration is that both light and gravitational energy appear to co-occur in the same space-time coordinate reference systems with only minimal apparent interactions. In a sense, both forms of energy appear to interpenetrate one another completely, without obvious destructive interference or influence between the two. It appears as if the space-time continuum is capable of containing and transmitting both forms of energy simultaneously across the same areas of space. How this happens of course remains a mystery that is at least to myself an interesting riddle begging to be solved.

A fourth corollary consideration is that both light and gravitational energy appear, upon a quantum level, to be very similar structures, with some important differences associated with each, and these structures appear to be primarily both periodic and oscillatory in nature, with some possible sense of axial spin suggested. Both appear to be able to propagate in a single direction, endlessly, if undisturbed, just as a moving body in empty space may travel endlessly in a single direction if undisturbed by gravitational or mechanical forces. Objects of mass appear to travel at speeds less than that of light, and quantum particles of light or gravity appear to travel at least at the speed of light, unaffected by any apparent mass, unless the intrinsic mass associated with a photon of light may influence its long term trajectory in terms of its shifting to lower frequencies and longer wave-lengths as a sign of its gradual degradation of internal energy, comparable to momentum that is associated with an objects motion in space-time.

The four forces we know are the effects of certain kinds of energy patterns that arise in relation to the actions of certain kinds of subatomic particles in relation to one another, within or in relation to the atomic nucleus. The energy that is transmitted from such forces, can be thought of not so much as little packets of energy traveling through empty space, so much as perturbations of the universal energy field, and the communication and transport of these perturbations to other remote coordinates in a larger system. It is good I believe to try to see the universal energy field in this way, as a medium engulfing the known, observable universe and that permits the transportation/communication of energy signals. The speed of light appears to be the constant rate of propagation of such signals, and this may be related to the instantaneous rate of periodic reiteration or alternation of the background field as an instantaneous structure.

What may become translated in an instantaneous manner is the energy into and back from the universal energy field, both at the source of its emission, and at the end-point of its final reception. The amount and kind of energy realized at either end of the transmission may in fact be the instantaneous realization of energy that exists in the background universal energy field, rather than energy that is itself transported through space-time from start to finish. The form and results of this energy depends upon the pattern of the transmission signal and the local conditions of its materialization.

Another way of perceiving this problem is to consider the "energy capsules" or quanta of energy that is transmitted, to be contained in the fabric of space-time during its transmission, each kind of energy causing a unique signature or pattern distortion upon the fabric of space time, measureable in terms of oscillations. It follows that if we examine in detail the quanta and its properties/patterns--amplitude, polarization, direction, frequency, wavelength, modulation, etc. we arrive at an understanding of the medium of transport and its capacities in this regard.

To summarize, we may hypothesize a universal energy field that is the background structure of the inferable and observable universe. This energy field is marked by continuous change of its dynamic instantaneous pattern--it unfolds everywhere at the same time. It may be constituted by a fundamental form of energy that is characterized both by an inherent indistinctiveness as well as by its capacity for regular, periodic alternation. The simplest form of alternation imaginable is a simple binary scheme, from on to off and back again--which would suggest a certain "blinking" structure though we could only guess at the nature of such blinking. This universal energy field appears to be dynamic on several levels, and yet at the same time appears to have some stable structural features. It can bend, and apparently flow, and yet remain within a flexible but fixed coordinate reference system.