The big bang theory of the origins of the universe is now
largely received and accepted as a matter of fact, though little direct evidence
is available to support its hypothesis. It has been published repeatedly in a
manner as to lead the general public and even many well informed readers to
accept this theory as a matter of scientific truth without the need for further
query or examination. Mathematical models and computersimulations are even run to demonstrate the hypothesis, based as these
models have been on the presuppositions of this theory which themselves are
seldom calledinto question. One would indeed now engender the full weight of the
scientific community to suggest that the big bang might not only be mistaken in
many details, but may be fundamentally and flat-out wrong as a description of
the origin of the universe. Refutation of a general theory that has so little
supporting evidence and that is yet so well received as a dominant paradigm of
science, remains itself an almostimpossible
task, much less the prospect of constructing a viable alternative explanation
for physical process, change and history in the universe. It would be like
defeating a grand uncertainty with yet another greater uncertainty.
This work was undertaken primarily as a deep thought piece
for the purpose of examining the structure of knowledge relating to one key
topic, that of the basic background field that serves as the contextual
substrate for physical reality in the universe. A unified field theory has been
the elusive quest of physicists since Einstein framed his general theory of
relativity in 1915-16. Perhaps all of physical reality can be summarized by a
simple set or paradigm of basic equations, or perhaps this is only the conceit
of physicists. My interest in undertaking this work now is merely to bring out a
set of thoughts on the topic of natural energy fields and to encapsulate this
work in conclusion of related work on natural systems and cosmology that I had
previously undertaken. In this earlier work the problem of an integrated energy
field and the structure of space-time proved to be central to a coherent model
of the universe and of physical reality in a general sense. The question of the
possible structure of such fields was salient enough in this other work to
demand its own context as a separate work.
Earlier work in physical systems theory and cosmology yielded
a number of insights and conclusions that are important to the understanding of
field theory. For instance, the universal field appears to be integrated in a
continuous sense, such that it permits no fundamental discontinuities from
occuring in the physical structure of reality. All events that occur happen
within the constraints determined by this field. Furthermore, on a very basic
level, this field appears to be fundamentally isomorphic with the things it
contains. If we could see things on a small enough scale, we would perhaps find
little difference between what we normally construe as "empty"
space-time, devoid of matter and energy, and the internal structure of matter
and energy itself, except perhaps for some relative isotropic density
differentials in whatever it is we would be seeing.
Attempting to understand the background field of the universe
leads us to ask some very fundamental questions about our reality--for instance,
what is time, and what is space? If change is ubiquitous as a phenomenon in the
universe, then why does it occur, and what exactly is it in both a mechanical
and an historical sense? How do things change in response and coordination to
other things, and yet retain an overall sense of unity of pattern? And what
exactly is mass and energy, and how is it these things can be equivalent, and
what is the relationship of these things to gravity and gravitation?
Furthermore, we may ask, is there really such a thing as a
background field of the universe, or is this merely a vast emptiness, an empty
vessel of nothingness that is perhaps full of the things it contains, like
matter and energy? Even if we hypothesize the a priori existence of a background
field, can we necessarily claim that such a field is intrinsically integrated in
some consistent and coherent way, such that it exhibits effects on the things it
contains in basic ways? Or is it more appropriate to think of integration as a
posteriori to the interrelationship of the things found within the field,
properties and characteristics extrinsic to these things, but attributable only
to the relationships between things in a Machian model and nothing more?
In attempting to more clearly understand this field, if we
can even say there really is such a thing, which I believe to be affirmative,
there are some interesting phenomena that need to be accounted for. First, light
and other forms of energy appear to pass within the four dimensional continuum
of this field without great interference and with few noticeable side-effects.
It appears as if light and other various forms of energy are almost perfect in
their state-path trajectory, or about as near to perfect as we can get in their
transmission properties through this field. Various forms of light and energy
can pass through the same specific areas simultaneously from almost every
direction without great apparent interaction or significant interference with
one another. And yet very old light can arrive to our observational lense from
very vast distances and yet reveal very discrete properties and information
about the sources that sent it.
I do not in these pages claim to hold forth a unified field
theory. I lack the mathematical genius to summarize everything systematically in
a single set of field equations. I only seek to offer an alternative heuristic
model, mostly upon a descriptive and conceptual level, of what I call the
universal field, the background context and substrate of physical reality, upon
which, I assert, everything known and knowable in a physical sense is built.
This field is the space-time construct in a fundamental sense, though the notion
of space-time as I use the compound term comprehends what I believe to be a
broader range of possibilities and dimensionalities than is conventionally
attributed to it in the classical relativistic sense.
The essential question for me is "What is
space-time" in a fundamental and essential sense. It is to inquire into the
nature of the void of space-time, that permits electromagnetic radiation to pass
through itself almost flawlessly and perfectly, and yet which nevertheless
leaves a negative balance sheet in many equations that are based upon notions of
conservation and equivalence. For instance, more radiation and mass appear to
exist in the universe than can be adequately accounted for by our current
received cosmological models. Gravity appears not to obey necessarily the
principles we have laid down for this force in our limited understanding of this
mysterious but omnipotent energy.
If space-time in its absolute state is really an empty vacuum
then it represents a perfect kind of perpetual motion machine. There is thus a
sense that it exhibits basic spatial and temporal characteristics, as an
infinitely empty framework, that serve to limit all events and existences within
its structure. Nevertheless, it appears in a basic sense to be infinite and
boundless in and of itself. Metaphysically, it presents us with a kind of
contradiction in which something is contained within nothing. Even physically
this kind of basic relationship appears to be fundamentally anti-entropic in a
manner that contradicts everything we know about physical reality. Space-time
appears to set fundamental and inviolable physical constraints upon all
expressions of mass and energy, and yet to be itself fundamentally
unconstrained, at least by any known dimension or meaning we are aware of.
It is my interest in this chapter to accomplish several
interrelated goals simultaneously. The first goal is to see to it that a
reasonable counter-case can be made against the Big Bang model by pointing up
some of the basic contradictions and fallacies of this model. The idea that
light should travel uniformly in great, perfect arcs, only to return repeated to
the place of its origination, is an absurd notion thatmany entertain but few question or carry to any greater critical depth.
The second goal is to provide a suitable replacement for the Big Bang model, in
terms of my cold fusion model of the gradually emerging dynamic state universe.
I accept this alternative to be more consonant with the existing evidence in the
form of the elementary distribution of matter in the universe and the known
methods for the original composition of this matter. The third is to extend the
possibilities of a grand model of cosmology, or of the total universe, as a
possible "meta-state" system that may becomprised along more dimensions than we can directly perceive, and that
may thus co-occur along several or even multiple pathways at the same time. At
this time, this third question is one that is well worth reconsidering in light
of a revised model of the space-time construct.
Universal meta-states refers us to a grand over-arching
structure of physical reality, and of the whole universe, barring none.
The
Hypothetical Universe
An Expanding
Universe Model
The
model provided suggests that the universe may be expanding through time in order
to maintain a sense of equilibrium between in an increasing dynamic
interpenetration of event structures in the background field. In other words, in
order for independent event structures to maintain their separate and
synchronous frames, greater and greater spatial segregation may be necessary.
The universe can be seen to be literally disintegrating at the seams of its
space-time construct. It is pulling itself apart upon the inter-galactic
interstices in the regions where dynamic turbulence would approach zero. This
continuous expansion of the universe must be seen as a part of its evolutionary
history. The universe is growing in an exponential and continuous sense. Because
it was infinite in the first frame, its growth can be boundless and yet reach no
limit. I believe that the growth of the universe is an equilibrium controlling
process that maintains an optimal distribution of major change events in the
structural distribution of the universe. Which ever direction we may choose to
peer with our telescopes, we should find the classic cosmological principle of
non-isotropic distribution being validated. In other words, we should expect
that the distribution of stars and galaxies more or less even across the
vastness of the universe. We should expect that though the universe is growing
increasingly dynamic, in an infinite frame of the total universe this is always
relative. The universe will never become either more dense or concentrated in
energy, nor more diffuse or vacuous than it was before. No matter how much it
expands, or how rapidly, its total dynamic will approximate zero. Infinite
expansion of its space allows for infinite growth of its dynamic components of
energy and matter.
We
can only understand this process if we resort toa conceptual model of numbers. We know that the set of all positive whole
numbers is less than the set of all positive and negative whole numbers, and
this is less than the set of all real numbers, and so on. We know that each set
is an infinite set, but less than the set that contains it, which is also, of
necessity, also infinite.
In
a growing universe we can expect that the amount of matter in an original state
was less than the amount of matter in the current state or in some future state,
but we can understand that the original state of all matter was by definition
infinite, and so is the current or any future state, though these states are
larger than the original one.
In
this case, in keeping with the cosmological principle and the model of the open,
infinite state universe, I would claim that any alleged curvature of space-time
is non-uniform, and on a cosmological scale tends to cancel itself out. The
overall structure of the universeis
therefore flat, with the proviso that its local and regional translational
topographies are probably quite variable.
Red
shift may reflect the expansion of the universe, but this expansion is not due
to the acceleration of distant galaxies or clusters, rather it is due to the
growth of the interstial spaces between these clusters. It follows that the
degradation of energy of the light signals that passes through the expansive
regions of space reflects this expansion. We cannot assume that light we are
recording from very distant sources has traveled some absolute distance of
space-time to reach its destination on earth. The breadth of its actual
state-path trajectory may actually be quite non-uniform and in the long run
twisted. The amount of red-shifting would indirectly reflect this degree of
non-linear departure of light from its linear path. The expansion of the
universe in its interstitial corridors would be experienced as a twisting and
curvature of space time, and it would possibly interact with light passing
through it in a manner to interfere and absorb the energy of light.
I
do not believe that it is appropriate to hypothesize a common origin point of
original expansion ora cosmic egg
hypothesis. I believe that however deeply into the cosmological past we maywant to venture, we would find that the structure of the
universe was always essentially open and infinite. What is possible is that the
common constituency or structure of the universe has evolved from one state to
another over a very great expanse of time, and this would reflect a variability
of structurethat would be
difficult to observe within or human limits. Ifthis were true, then it would also suggest that the universe mayhave forms of extensive and intensive variability as well that we have
not yet observed, and that the total structure of the universe is somewhat more
complex and variegated thanthe
flat, cosmological model we see through our telescopes.
I
had at some point hypothesized an anti-state universe that interconnected at
critical energy points with our own universe. I do not know if this model is a
necessary or very parsimonious one, especially if we can explain the fundamental
atomic structure of matter in terms reducible to electron-positron pairs that
interact in complex ways to form nucleonic structures.
An
expanding model of the universe is really one in which the four-dimensional sheet
of the background field is infinitely expansive and stretchable in all
directions. The expansion of space-time suggests limitations to gravitational
fields, if we understand gravitation as a form of radiation. The universe would
pull itself apart, or continuously just "fall apart" at the zones
where gravitational energy from different sources are mutually destructive. We
do not expect gravitational fields to grow stronger or more integrative in the
intermediate depths of intergalactic space. We expect it to grow weaker and
weaker, to the point that it exhibits, instead of concentrative flows, expansive
flows.
*****
Upon
a basic level, it is likely that we will never be able to arrive, by means of
observation and experimentation, at a complete picture of our physical world. We
may develop rational models of the universe and its physical fabric of reality
that are derived from our observations and calculations, but it is very possible
that some endpoint will be reached beyond which, given our own physical states
of being, we will not be able to venture in order to prove what is true in a
manner that is conventionally acceptable from a scientific point of view. At the
same time, we cannot arbitrarily draw the line between what is merely unknown
and what may be ultimately unknowable. We lack any objective, non-arbitrary
means of discriminating reality beyond the event horizon of our own scientific
world-view, based as this is upon state-of-the-art techniques and technology of
research. We have surely pushed the envelope of knowledge far further than we
could have imagined even 30 years previously, and it is likely that, before the
limits of science are reached, we push this empirical envelope of our knowledge
even further than we can now imagine.
The
aim of natural systems theory and meta-systems science in its development has
really been the cultivation of what can be called a naturalistic worldview and a
naturalist philosophy about the world as we perceive it and live within it. It
can be said that natural philosophy. This philosophy provides a symbolic order
and rational explanation of the real world that can be said to make sense
scientifically.
The
natural philosophy of science is not strictly tied to a rationalist view of the
world as this has become articulated as the predominant theme of the Western
European tradition. Empiricism, especially as this has been developed in the
British and later American traditions, beginning with Roger Bacon's first essays
on inductivism and scientific method, has been a strong counterpoint to the
Platonic idealism and its subsequent dialectics, especially in the framework of
such distinguished philosophers as Rene' Decartes.
*****
I
propose a fundamental unity of order underlying the diverse patterns found in
the physical universe. This fundamental unity of order can be represented in a
rough way by the following diagram:
This
model is a simple and efficient system ofinteraction.
A triangular structure between components is perhaps the simplest and yet most
varied structure that we are capable of having.
For
this kind of system to work, we would have to account for the following:
1.
How apparently empty space can lead to the spontaneous production of light
energy.
2.
How light energy can form seas of electron-positron clouds that can interact and
combine in ways to produce hydrogen nuclei and molecules.
3.
How hydrogen atoms can coalesce to produce concentrative gravitational effects
that drives anti-entropically higher fusion and fission processes.
4.
How electromagnetic energy can be returned to the apparently empty reservoir of
space-time.
5.
How matter can interact with gravitational energy to produceheat and electromagnetic energy.
6.
How mass can be returned to the empty-reservoir of space-time gravitationally.
In
this model, two separate arrows were drawn between each of the distinct forms to
indicate that reactions and interactions proceeded normally in both directions,
but that these pathways of interaction were separate and independent from one
another.
We
can say that there is a complex equilibrium associated with the overall
structure, and with each element of the structure as well. Each arrow would
represent reaction equation, and the overall interaction between the forms would
represent a kind of dynamic equilibrium of state-structure. Generally, each
state form, space-time, matter and energy represents alternative conformations
of fundamental physical structure that are essentially equivalent to one
another, and whose end-state as such is fairly strong in any equilibrium
equation. In all the universe, we can have only some combination of these three
state forms. We may conjecture on hybrid state-forms existing, such as
super-liquids, and we can conjecture on "super-matter" existing within
the nucleus ofa black hole, but it
is not empirically clear exactly what is inside a black hole.
We
can speak of general interactions occurring between space-time, (or spime),
matterand energy on a continuous
and regular basis. All of these interactions are essentially unidirectional and
irreversible. We can furthermore specify a peculiar order for these
interactions:
I
would say that if we seek a natural evolutionary order to the universe, we must
see it as the rise of the complex from the simple, and of the high energy
end-states from relatively low energy end-states.
The dynamic state model
rests upon certain basic presuppositions about the fundamental structure of the
universe. According to this theory, the universe is:
a. infinite in extent.
b. stratified along a
single infinite continuum of size and scale.
c. is composed of
interchangeable forces & states that are fundamentally of the same basic
ground state.
d. the entire universe
can be said to be gravitationally dynamic.
There will always be
more regions of the total universe than we can readily observe or indirectly
infer. In all regions and at all levels of structural stratification, a certain
consistency of structure and dimension are assumed to exist, such that we can
state that the universe is everywhere at the same time of the same basic kind of
physical composition and structure of reality. We can never directly comprehend
or even indirectly infer the total universe, especially the entire
contemporaneous universe all at once. We can only apply and attune our
cosmological principle to the understanding of the larger structure of physical
reality. Ultimately we do so on the basis of logic and inductive inference
alone. We assume that for the total universe, the patterning of structure is in
the largest sense non-isotropic and ultimately random. We do not assume an
overarching order of the meta-state universe beyond that which is observable
within our own small region of it. This is not to say that a larger sense of
order might not exist that remains essentially beyond our observation, but we
might never come to clearly define this larger structure except hypothetically.
The claim of a big bang model is really one for an isotrope distribution of
galaxies and clusters in space relative to one another.
If we could see
"instantaneously"--if we could conduct observations that occurred at
an infinite speed, then we would be capable of comprehending the total universe
at the same time, in a single scan of the heavens so to speak. It is possible
that if we could create and fine tune instruments that allowed us to scan the
heavens gravitationally, then we may push the resolution of the heavens to far
greater depths than we have by relying on light transmission alone. It would not
only reveal a universe far deeper, but far more different, as we would be
reviewing a near contemporaneous state system.
What we are really
observing with red shift is summarized by the following kind of statement:
The further in depth we
peer, the greater the red-shift. The further back in time we look, the more
light appears to have become red-shifted. Another way of saying this is that old
light appears red-shifted. If the Doppler theory is correct, the universe was
expanding at a much greater rate of speed 15 billion years ago than we notice
today. Based on this, it is impossible to say if it is still expanding in a
similar manner, has stopped expanding, or may be reversed in its direction of
general motion. It is more plausible to suggest that as light gets very old in
its sojourn through the space-time of the universe, it tends to shift toward the
red end of the spectrum, and this shifting would represent a general loss of
energy of the light. This loss may be due to the cumulative gravitational lens,
or Einstein effect of the larger universe upon light, or just to some intrinsic
quality of light in otherwise 'empty' space-time, or to some combination of
factors.
The point is not to say
that there is no expansion occurring in the contemporaneous state universe, but
to say that there is no seeing what is happening in the contemporaneous state
universe or inferring at any significant distance, and therefore it is
impossible to say exactly what is happening at this moment everywhere else other
than the earth. The logic of this argument is inescapable, and this alone is
enough to overturn the plausibility of the big-bang as the dominant model of
universal cosmology.
A point that can travel
at an infinite speed can essentially be everywhere at the same time. We might
refer to it either as an eternally vanishing or forever appearing point. For a
system of infinitely small size, it appears that directionality of motion of the
system becomes decreasingly important as a constraint. An infinitely small point
that was universally instantaneous could exist anywhere at the same time. The
directionality of light appears to be important for instance, but the field
effects of light cannot be ignored. It appears that light forms an instantaneous
field during its transmission. This field seems to unite all light occurring in
that instant, if the light comes from the same discrete source.
The
directionality of light suggests for instance, according to our theory of
motion, that light is a composite entity that composes a heterogeneous system.
The components of this system remain together, and travel in the same exact
direction. At some point, it appears, that even the Einsteinian probability that
is associated with quantum mechanics may become increasingly uncertain until we
can only evoke a model of universal possibility--a particular energy-event may
occur anywhere, regardless of the structure of the system, at the same time.
This range of unlimited possibility embraces what can be called a unified field.
The probability of such a point occurring in any particular place will
correspond exactly to the relative space-time density achieved at that point.
The greater the density, the greater the gravitational effect that is associated
with increased probability of occurrence across a differential gradient.
We may say that the
universe appears to hold itself together in some mysterious manner. We
understand this mechanical coherence of the universe gravitationally. We see how
the planets are held to the sun, the moon to the earth, and the sun to a
trajectory in a larger galaxy. We cannot really tell if there is some larger
gravitational framework that occurs in the universe, although there does not
seem to be beyond the scale of the super-cluster, which is itself an incredibly
large scale.
I would argue that there
is a larger "holding together coherence" of the universe, even if this
is directionally non-isotropic. This holding together accounts for the
consistence of the cosmological principle, and for the continuity of space-time
and its gravitational effects wherever we may go. To understand this
cosmological coherence, we must understand the structure of space-time itself.
The Structure of Physical Reality, the Universal Background
Field & the Total Universe
If thermodynamic energy processes dominate the universe in a
closed system, such that all energy transactions always tend toward disorder and
a universal energy sink, then we cannot logically explain the formation of large
concentrated structures based upon the permanent and long-term capture of
massive amounts of energy. The fact of the observation of such large formations,
from myriad stars to larger galaxies and super-galaxies, suggests other
invisible processes may be occurring in our universe. From a systems standpoint,
such formations can only be explained if we assume two things: 1. The universe
is an open, and therefore an infinite system, such that all energy transactions
occurring in a working system are part of a larger framework of energy
transactions; 2. There is an alternate form of energy that occurs, namely
gravitational energy, that does not strictly obey the laws of thermodynamics and
that is in many respects the reverse and complementary to the positive energy
transactions with associate with purely thermodynamic systems. We may say
therefore that all systems in the universe are thermodynamic, but they are also
gravitationally dynamic, and these two sets of processes tend toward equivalence
and complementariness of structural pattern in the developmental formation of
the universe.
The model of the dynamic state universe stipulates the
following:
1. The universe contains everything in reality, and is not
contained by anything, such that whatever large structure we may imagine or
observe in the universe, there is always some more fundamental and larger
structure that contains that imagined or observed structure.
a. As a corollary of this basic statement, we may say that
the laws of thermodynamics governing positive energy transactions apply
universally, and this universal applicability of thermodynamics governing
positive energy systems provides evidence for the infinite openness of the
universe as a fundamental containing structure.
b. A second corollary of this proposition is that the laws of
gravitational dynamics governing negative energy transactions also apply
universally, and are entirely complementary to the positive energy transactions.
This entails that no matter how open and infinite the structure of the universe
may be, from the standpoint of negative energy transactions it remains
fundamentally whole and unitary as a composite integrated energy system, or what
can be called a unified and universal background field.
2. Therefore, the Universe is probably infinite, and
therefore also it is probably eternal in its total fundamental framework--it
always existed, will always exist, and had no beginning nor any end.
3. There is basic sense of equivalence, or isomorphism of
essential structure, underlying all energy transactions in the universe.
a. Positive energy transactions in the large and the long run
exactly balance negative energy transactions.
4. In the largest sense, the universe is composed of pure and
basic energy, and all things and events that occur in the universe are
derivative patterns of this basic form of energy.
5. What has evolved and changed in the universe is the
profile and overall distribution of forms of patterned energy and the way in
which positive and negative energy transactions occur within the unified field.
It appears that there has occurred a continual stockpiling of
matter, or mass-based energy, and a tendency towards the concentration and
formation of increasingly dense mass-structures, to the point that the
relatively permanent and stable mass systems develop and accumulate in average
spatial-temporal densities.
At the same time, it appears that larger and larger regions
of the universe are becoming gravitationally unified about a common or shared
center of greatest mass, and this process of increasing gravitational
unification is serving to create order from disorder, and structured pattern
from chaotic and stochastic pattern in the basic framework of the universe.
Thus, it can be said that the universe at one time was
probably mostly empty and undifferentiated, consisting mainly of the basic form
of energy in space-time. It is thought that inherent turbulence in this
structure resulted in increasing differentiation and formation of emergent
patterns and formations of energy, with new suites of properties and behaviors
associated with these emergent patterns. Both positive and negative forms of
energy were the consequence of the emergence of increasingly differentiated
structures.
Thus we see the universe as evolving gradually from a less to
greater differentiated states, and from essentially stochastic and non-isotrope
states, obeying a perfect cosmological principle, toward increasingly ordered
and isotrope conditions. Thus we may refer to the universe as growing
increasingly dynamic with each passing phase.
We may state the following net outcomes of the dynamic state
universe. Though larger and larger regions of space will become gravitationally
unified, space overall will become compartmentalized into regions that remain in
total un-unified and non-isotrope in distribution and direction.
This theory rests upon certain presuppositions:
Upon a fundamental level, there is an essential isomorphism
of structure of energy in the universe, and this constitutes the universal
background field.
There is regular transference and conversion of energy
between positive and negative forms through the interaction of matter and energy
in gravitational fields.
There is a net balance of all energy transactions.
Electron-positron pairs are regularly created in the
universe as a by-product of inherent turbulence of the universal background
field.
Fundamental constituent elements of matter, in the form of
nucleons, are regularly created from energy transactions, by means of
interactions and capture of electron-positron pairs. All other subatomic
particles are constituted in this way and represent derivative structures of
mass.
Protons are the most stable, mass-bearing subatomic particle,
and it is this great stability that the observable structures of the universe
are based upon.
Basic matter in the form of hydrogen clouds stockpile in
increasing amounts and local relative densities, to the point that they coalesce
into gravitationally unified structures, or stellar systems, from which
subsequent processes of thermonuclear fusion, arising as the result of
tremendous gravitational pressures, result in the formation of higher numbered
elements.
Very large gravitational conglomerations of heavier matter
result eventually in the formation of very dense entities that have a permanent
life-span.
Chunks of heavy matter that exist and float in space-time,
may be very, very old. Even the earth itself must originally have formed in a
previous star system and represents either a captured planetoid or a subsequent
conglomeration of particulate mass in its current solar configuration.
The observable structures of the universe are probably much
older, and far larger in distribution, than conservative estimates of
contemporary physicists would attribute, especially within the framework of a
big bang model. The total universe is in fact infinitely old and infinitely
vast, and its observable formations themselves are much older than we may yet
want to believe.
The Unified Field and the Infinite Universe
The unified field I take to be the entire containing volume
of the total universe. This field structure is non-empty in the basic sense that
it appears to be composed of a fundamental medium, a medium I call "spime"
as a portmanteau of space-time. This medium is the mother of all known physical
phenomena and entities/processes that we are familiar with. This unified field
appears dynamic in the sense that it has properties of being bendable, possibly
stretchable, and also, it appears, fluid dynamic in the sense that if flows
continuously, though this flow occurs at a level below that of the propagation
of light, it appears to affect the motional trajectories of large objects of
matter, and hence the motional dynamics of all forms of matter. There is a point
of analysis of the unified field that it constitutes a system that is
characterized by complementary relationships between components that cannot be
clearly or definitely analyzed. Gravitation is a case in point, because in one
way it appears to be isomorphic (i.e., identical to the structure of space-time
itself) and yet in another way to behave as a form of energy that is contained
within the volume created by space-time.
There is a sense that space-time is
both a container of other things like energy and matter, and is contained,
perhaps by itself as a self-containing entity. As something that is contained or
at least self-contained, it appears to exhibit a set of independent, state-bound
properties. The problem in considering the unified field seems to be to that of
separating clearly the field and its intrinsic properties from the events and
things it contains and therefore universally constrains. Ultimately, it appears,
we cannot fully separate this background field from the event structures that it
contains and that are constrained by it. For instance, are photons that
propagate through this field merely vibratory resonances of the field itself, or
are they event-entities that are separable from the space-time field matrix that
they contain. That the velocity of light is fixed and uniform suggests for
instance that all light is enmeshed, and possibly embedded in an intrinsic
sense, in this background field structure.
The key question is whether or not the background universal
field is indeed unified or not, and therefore whether we are justified in
calling it a "unified field." We assume it is in a fundamental and
local sense, but we would be hard pressed to prove it or demonstrate it in a
cosmological or universal way. We assume it must hang together in some
fundamental way because we cannot imagine any abrupt discontinuities of its
structure--light for instance is observed to travel vast distances of space and
time, and we appear to find nowhere, except in the confines of a black hole,
where it suddenly "falls over" an edge to disappear forever. If there
are discontinuities of structure of the unified field, then we assume that these
must occur on a scale so small that we cannot direct see or even measure their
effects in a clear way. It is possible that upon a fundamental level, for
instance, the universe may be quite "porous" with many tiny little
dimensionless holes of "nothingness."
This would perhaps account for
the fluid dynamic structure of fundamental space-time. But in a larger overall
sense, we cannot assume a unified structure or system. It appears for instance,
that there is some scale large enough, beyond which we cannot assume
gravitational unification of systems, and many clusters and super-clusters
appear to hang together independently of one another across vast empty
stretches. This does not mean that there may not be even larger unified
gravitational structures. It appears that it is the nature of gravitational
systems to become self-organizing and unified over time, and this is regardless
of whether there exists a dominant gravitating body in a system or merely a
complex of mutually interacting bodies of more or less equivalent size and
gravitational magnitudes. We must speculate therefore whether the universe may
not have achieved such unification over very vast distances, or possibly, it has
achieved it, but this unification exists beyond our sphere of observational
power. If we look at systems 10 billion light-years in age/distance, we must
understand that 10 billion years ago the universe may not have achieved the
degree of gravitational unification that occurs in the simultaneous system that
we can assume to exist contemporaneously with our own. The appearance of
relative uniformity and organization of the Milky Way galaxy, for instance, even
though its breadth covers an age of 75 million years, suggests that locally this
system has been unified in a stable manner for a very long time.
Gravitational unification appears to be a non-instantaneous
system of structuring in the universe, depending upon a certain type of
gravitational flow of space-time and the fluid dynamic structure of the
space-time manifold. There may occur another level of gravitational
interdependency that is instantaneous and possibly universal in effect, and
which can be referred to as the string structure of the unified background
field. Relations occurring at this level would be considered instantaneous and
propagating at an infinite speed, and would provide the basis for assuming
universal relativity and a simultaneous state universe. In other words, at all
times, in all directions, the universe as a background field would be considered
to be unified in a coherent manner.
We may say, for instance, that the unified field is in a
fundamental system universally the same everywhere. The same laws of mass and
motion, of gravitational and thermodynamics, apply everywhere equally, though
these laws appear to be relative to the scale and size of event structure that
they occur upon. There would be no place or framework within the universe that
we could travel to to escape these kinds of basic constraints, even if we
traveled forever in any given direction. This constitutes the basis for assuming
universal relativity, as in a basic sense we can predict the laws of mechanics
and dynamics of event structures wherever these may occur, and even if we cannot
directly observe their occurrence. Even if the universe proves to be
heterogeneously and multi-dimensionally complex in its overall patterning and
sense of order, we an still assume that universal relativity holds in a
fundamental sense everywhere, equally.
The conclusion is therefore that the universe is composed of
a uniform and universal background field upon a fundamental level far smaller
than that of any known subatomic particle, and this constitutes an order and
level of reality that, like matter, and energy, is a fundamental aspect or basic
form of the physical universe. We assume a universal equivalence between spime,
or the stuff of space-time, energy and matter, and hence regular transactions
between these three alternative forms. Gravitational interactions can be said to
be the consequence and evidence for these kinds of fundamental interactions
between the three different forms of physical reality. These interactions in
turn determine the relative flow structures of this fundamental form of physical
reality. More to the point, all known forms of positive energy and matter arise
from and interact gravitationally with this basic form of spime, and if we are
to seek a causal explanation for the rise of the universe as we observe it, it
must be in terms of these fundamental interactions and their long term, large
scale consequences. For instance, a proton may be said to be a consequence of
particle pair formation and interaction in certain conditions of convergence of
electromagnetic radiation, that itself may be said to be the spontaneous
consequence of certain conditions of gravitational flux and interaction. If a
proton is a very stable composite entity defined by the relative point motions
of the subatomic entities composing it, namely a positron with associated muons/neutrinos
that form quark like structures, then we can understand that they can be
produced under certain conditions that may from our vantage point appear highly
unusual or unlikely, but which in the larger frame of the universe may in fact
be quite common and pervasive in occurrence.
It may be the case that this level of spime may in fact be
directly unobservable or unavailable to our ability to observe it, either
directly or indirectly, except in terms of inferences we can draw from the
patterning of its consequences (i.e., gravitational systems and effects.)
This may be why we have been unable to observe quarks in our
experiments. This indeed appears to be the case, and there are some common
gravitational phenomena that can be parsimoniously and logically explained in no
other terms than the interactions of spime with matter and energy.
We may conclude also that spime contains a great deal of
inherent or intrinsic or potential energy as well as mass that remains
essentially invisible. This energy and negative mass is felt in terms of inertia
of energy and mass, and in terms of the entropy effects of positive energy in
the background field. This negative energy and mass may be said to be inherent
or latent to the background structure of the unified field,
If this is the case, we must also assume that spime itself
may be a compositely structured phenomena, and that it may in effect be the
consequence, as a system of some more basic form or strata of reality that we
can scarcely imagine. It is at this level that we can possibly conclude that the
universe as we know it may be fundamentally and multidimensionally more complex
than we can see or directly infer, and that there may be multiple universes
interpenetrating, though beyond the reach of our own physical form.
A consequence is that we can imagine no coordinate or no
place or time in the universe that exists outside of or in a manner that is not
fundamentally constrained by the background, unified field.
Time is our measurement of change, and change, not time, is
intrinsic to the processes of the universe. These change processes tend to be
systematic in a predictive and measureable manner, at least upon some
non-fundamental scales of measurement. Change occurs at differential, usually
non-linear rates, as measured by time, at different scales of measurement, and
these rates themselves may be complexly determined by a number of interdependent
variables. In physical systems, we may speculate upon different kinds of change
processes occurring. From a purely structural point of view, all change can only
operate within a paradigm of a limited number of possibilities--for instance
change as an increase or decrease in rate, and lead to developmental or
evolutionary transformations, toward increasing order, or alternative towards
disordered states or entropy, or towards a steady state of relative non-change,
punctuated or periodic change.
We do not have a real theory of measured change in our
physical systems. Is it additive in the manner that mass seems to be, or is it
relative to the scale and size of the event structure upon which it occurs, or
at least, at which it is measured. It is apparent for instance, that large scale
change events tend to be composite structures of smaller change events that may
occur at much faster rates. Even large scale event structures that happen very
rapidly, or in an explosive manner, may in fact be composite structures made up
of many tinier and much more rapid change event structures. We may look at all
of physical reality and the processes that constitute this from the standpoint
of such change event structures. Motion is really a change event structure
through space and time, constrained as it is by certain rules and forces, by
mass, inertia and direction, by velocity and acceleration. When we watch an
object traveling through space, we presume that it is in motion and changing in
its coordinates relative to the rest of the universe, but if we were on the
object, our perspective may change, and we may instead bear witness to the
shifting of the entire universe while we ourselves appeared to be stationary or
relatively motionless. We recognize the motion of the object because the
intrinsic integrity, shape and properties of the object appear to remain
constant or relatively unaltered, though its extrinsic relationship with the
larger world appears to shift radically.
I would state the following proposition of universal
relativity regarding the structure of the universe and of physical reality.
1. First, the same fundamental processes and principles that
apply in our corner of the universe, apply in all corners of the universe. The
same matter, energy and dynamics that occur in our solar system occur in varied
form in all solar systems. Only if intensive boundaries of physical reality are
discovered, by which additional dimensions or alternative realities are
connected, can we extend our universe in a manner that would make it a more
complex, heterogeneous and interesting place.
2. The universe occurs simultaneously, at the same instant,
everywhere, and continues evolving in every corner at the same time. We assume
that simultaneous events are fundamentally independent events, and this
independent structure of co-occurring, simultaneous events across the universe
constitutes the basis for the cosmological principle. Independence of
simultaneous event structures entails that the larger structure of the universe
is non-isotrope and only stochastically determined.
3. Upon a fundamental level, we may assume the possibility of
basic interdependency of event structure and a spatio-temporal relativity of the
rate and size of event structure, such that the following paradigm may apply:
a. The larger the scale of the event
structure, the slower the periodic process of the total structure, such that an
infinitely large event structure, is infinitely slow.
b. The smaller the scale of the event
structure, the faster the periodic process of the fundamental structure, such
that an infinitely small event structure is infinitely fast.
c. Because an infinitely small event
structure may be infinitely fast, it may occur anywhere at the same time and be
fundamentally indeterminate.
d. Because an infinitely large event
structure may be infinitely slow, it is universally changeless or without time.
4. The conclusion is therefore that all fundamental periodic
process may be simultaneously co-occurring because there is a small enough scale
of event structure at which all events become interdependent to one another. In
other words there is a level of fundamental physical reality at which all
processes become interconnected.
5. All large scale processes are composite event structures
that have emergent properties associated with them relative to their scale that
is not associated with the smaller event structures that compose them.
6. The gravitational field is the universal space-time matrix
in which all event structures occur. This field obeys the paradigm of spime-gravitational
dynamics. Gravitation as a form of energy represents a complex set of
interrelated phenomena that are related to the laws of mass, quantum mechanics
and thermodynamics. It is difficult to determine if gravitational fields are
intrinsic and embedded in the space-time matrix, and thus are a function of the
shape and dynamic flow of these fields, or whether it may also represent a form
of radiation, or free energy, that is propagated and transmitted through the
spime-gravitational field. I'm inclined at this stage to believe that it is both
of these things--gravitation as active energy is shed off by large gravitating
bodies and systems, and this form of propagation itself may be complex.
Physical reality appears gravitationally stratified along a
continuum, which I will speculate constitutes a continuum of
frequency/wave-length of the gravitational entity, or graviton. These levels of
gravitation co-occur simultaneously and as a well system in which each system is
a subsystem of the one that contains it. It is possible that the relative
frequency/wave-length of gravitational phenomena are a function of the relative
rate or speed of their propagation such that the stronger the gravitational
field (i.e., high frequency/low wave-length) the slower the periodic rate of
propagation of the field, and the weaker the gravitational field (i.e., low
frequency/long wave-length) the more rapid the rate of propagation, up to and
including infinite or instantaneous rates of propagation.
Gravitational fields also take a form of negative energy that
is implicit to the structure, conformation and flow dynamics of the space-time
matrix or manifolds. This flow influences gravity and the flow of objects
through space-time in relation to one another, and forms the basis for the
induction of space-time into gravitating bodies or rather into the nuclei of
matter that composes these bodies.
*****
The universal field can be said to be universally
co-occurring
at precisely the same instant. It happens everywhere at the same time. I call
this the principle of universal instantaneity, or the principle of simultaneity,
which I consider to be complementary to the principle of singularity. I will
state this principle in the following axiomatic manner:
All co-occurring change events in the universe happen at the
same instant, or simultaneously.
Several corollaries are forthcoming from this axiomatic
statement. First, for instance, we can say that if all change events are
sequentially determined in a diachronic sense, it follows that synchronous
events are causally independent of one another. They may indirectly share the
same causes, as ultimately all events in the Universe share the same ultimate
origins, but in the immediate sense they coexist independently of one another.
Second, we cannot comprehend all synchronous change events at
the same time in the total universe. We can only comprehend one change event
synchronously, and that is the event that is precisely centered at the origins
of our own physical being.
Related to this notion is the third corollary that we cannot
comprehend synchronously any event at all, in a truly synchronous manner. All
our comprehension is itself diachronous, and hence we can only comprehend phase
and period transition pattern through time. Though we can experience
instantaneity only in terms of our own physical being, and this is the only
concrete manifestation of time that we can have, we can only know time
diachronically after the fact of this experience through memory and record. We
can make sense of the order of things in the universe through time. Even
synchronicity itself can only be understood after the fact of its observation in
the diachronic patterning of deterministic interrelationship between different
things.
Universal simultaneity then leaves us with a fundamental
paradox and relativity of our knowledge that is very evident in the structure of
our observational sphere. It is only inferable from the observation of
interrelationship and consistency of pattern between distant or remotely related
things or events in reality. It cannot be immediately apprehended as such.
Furthermore, our only way of understanding the cosmographical history of change
events in the universe, is if we have some standard frame of reference by which
to conceptualize and compare such events. In other words, we need to hypothesize
a simultaneity principle if we are to understand coherence of structure through
time. It is by the relativity of changes, and the differentials of change events
that we can infer to be simultaneous and relatively independent of one another,
that we can understand the diachronous history of events in the universe.
The principle of simultaneity suggests that the total
universe is a mysterious kind of mechanical system that works or functions in
consistent and fairly predictable ways. It is like a tremendous clockwork that is
perfect in its time keeping. If all significant events that co-occur
simultaneously in the universe are not directly, causally tied to one another in
an instantaneous sense, we can observe that all events are constrained by the
same basic principles in the same way, and these constitute the principles of
universal relativity. This leads us to believe as well that all events are
indirectly tied to one another, however remotely, and all probably also share
the same original history. If we seek out these kinds of fundamental
constraints, then I believe we must look to the evidence provided to us in the
universal field and in particular the gravitational energy found within it.
An analogy is appropriate at this point. If our
contemporary
world is in excess of six billion human beings, we can conclude probably that my
actions in writing this on my word processor at this moment probably has no
bearing whatsoever on the immediate circumstances or fate of the rest of the
people on earth. In turn their actions appear to have no immediate effect on the
outcomes of this sentence. Nevertheless, in a relativistic sense, the fact of my
sitting here no, writing this, has fairly direct bearing on the status of my
small family, and probably in a more remote sense, bearing on my own status and
my family's status in a larger world. Furthermore, just because I am momentarily
isolated from the rest of humanity it does not mean that ultimately all of
humanity is not constrained in the same basic biological ways and had the same
ultimately biological origins in the rise of humankind. I share the same natural
history in a fundamental way with the rest of humanity, and this history has a
significant bearing on what I am now writing and doing, even in determining
the possibility that I could be doing this in the first place.
In order to really make this digression interesting, I will
hypothesize one conclusion from the axioms presented above about universal
simultaneity. The fact of mutual coexistence, or of universal simultaneity, of
all co-occurring events that are otherwise independent of one another,
preconditions and constrains the co-occurrence of all change events in
fundamental ways. The fact of universal simultaneity all co-occurring
instantaneous events must share the same general relational field at the same
time, and hence are fundamentally constrained by this field in the same way. The
sun burst here is causally unconnected to a solar flare on the other side of the
galaxy happening at the same time. The fact of their co-occurrence determines
that these two events cannot suddenly trade places, or occur otherwise than they
did in relation to one another, however direct or indirect, and however
immediate or remote. If they did not happen in relation to one another, or if
they were in fact part of the same event, then they could not be simultaneously
co-occurring.
In a general sense, all change events that are
instantaneously simultaneous, are part of the same universal change event. This
universal change event I would call the basic universal dynamics of the field
itself. Simultaneous events co-occur because they are part of and functionally
serve to maintain the instantaneous structure of the field as a universal change
event. In other words, they are by de facto co-occurrence part and parcel of the
structural integrity of the universal field. Without this integrity, we could
not predict things that happen, and we could not infer or superimpose
cosmological principles to the entire universe based upon what we know and
experience in our immediate and contemporaneous worlds.
*****
The universal background field, as a field, is universally
integrated. It exhibits a continuity of structure that, according to the
principles of universal relativity, cannot be violated in the most fundamental
sense. I define the universal field as synonymous to the total space-time
construct that encompasses all physically occurring phenomena in reality. I
assume that no knowable phenomena can occur beyond the boundary parameters of
this construct. I also assume a basic universal relativity of this construct,
such that for any two similar systems in any areas of this construct, the
mechanical principles affecting both systems will be identical. This is the
basis for the presupposition of the principles of universal relativity.
This statement basically contradicts a general relativistic
notion of space-time that deals with Lorenz transformations within a framework
defined by the constant of the speed of light. Space-time as we understand this
is relative in a Machian sense to the things that it contains, namely matter and
energy as we are capable of normally experiencing these physical phenomena. It
is evident that the normal structure of our experience of space-time breaks down
on the scale of the very small when we must deal with quantum relativities. It
is possible to see as well that general relativity also imposes a large scale
observational relativity to our understanding of the universe, such that,
according to its principles, we cannot have a normally instantaneous
comprehension of the entire universe that is based upon observation. It is
possible though, that just as normal dimensionalities and processes of
space-time seem to disintegrate at the very small level, they also come to break
down on the scale of the very large.
While it is invariably true that all "things"
within the universal field are relative to one another in a general sense, it
may also well be true that the field, with or without the physical
manifestations of the things it contains, is only relative to itself in a larger
universal sense, or alternatively in some meta-state framework that we do not
yet realize. In other words, the field acts upon the things it contains, and
constrains these things in basic relativistic ways, and to some degree, the
field and the things within it interact. But it also appears to be the case that
the things in the field are not independent of the field and that the field
remains relatively independent of these things.
In other words, the basis of the
principles of universal relativity is that the structure of the universe is not
and cannot be Machian in the classical sense of being defined by the things it
holds. The structure of the universe as a universal field of space-time
underlies and predetermines the phenomenal patterning of the physical processes
and entities found embedded in it. If we are to accept a Machian view of the
universe, then it must be from the standpoint of an inverted form of Machian
relativity, such that the things in the universe are only knowable in relation
to the field that they are contained within.
The starting point for understanding the integrity of the
universal field on the largest scales is to draw an inference of the very large,
but invisible, based upon inferences we can make on normal sized scales within
our observational field. We can infer, for instance, that Mars is simultaneously
co-occurring with our own Earth, and therefore with ourselves as we are a part of
the Earth. We can infer that Alpha Centauri is probably co-occurring
simultaneously with our own Sun, even though there is a four year lag in the
light information we receive from Centauri, such that if it exploded to
smithereens just now, we may not know it until and unless we receive the light
signals from it in about four years time. We assume that the likelihood of its
spontaneous disintegration is probably very low, and so we are safe to assume its
simultaneous coexistence with ourselves. Similarly, we can extend our scale a
bit, and assume that the Milky Way galaxy, as a semi-coherent system, is
simultaneously co-occurring in all sectors of its observational radius, though it
requires light well over a hundred years to reach us from its furthest reaches
on the opposite side of the galactic center from our own sun.
If we had a human colony on the other side of the galaxy,
then it would require over a century for radio transmission between our selves
and this remote colony to be received. We would not know if they were still
alive at the instant we speak or whether they went extent fifty years ago even
though we would continue receiving their broadcast transmissions for at least
another fifty years. We do not expect that significant portions of the Milky Way
to suddenly shift or tear apart in an unpredictable manner. In such a manner,
with increasing distance, there is increasing deductive inference about
universal instantaneity, though we eventually reach beyond the limits of the
sphere of our observability, at least as this sphere is defined relatively
by the speed of light.
It is clear that with increasing distances, especially very
great depths implied by the limits of our sphere of observation, that there is
both a regular and recurrent sense of order. We must be increasingly uncertain
as to the exact state or contemporaneous disposition of very remote regions of
our universe in relation to ourselves. We infer a probability of a given
stability and homogeneity of structure and order in the universe, such that
though we cannot directly observe very remote areas beyond the relativistic
compass of our observational sphere, we can infer their probable contemporaneous
coexistence.
If these structures simultaneously co-occur, and if
gravitational radiation is indeed constrained by the speed of light, which
appears to be a universal speed limit, then it is likely that at very great
distances there is no effective interaction between structures or
"unities" of things in the universe. Each natural constellation of
heavenly bodies, large or comparatively small, is defined within its own limits
of observability and interactivity, beyond which there would be no significant
interaction, at least not on levels that we can observe. Indeed, our view of the
heaven's in almost any direction reveals just such a picture of the universe.
Universal relativity of the space-time construct suggests two
possibilities that on the surface appear congruent with a classical Newtonian
and mechanical view of physical reality. The first is that of the notion of
absolute space in relation to instantaneous time. If we can conjecture that all
events simultaneously co-occur in the universe, then we must hypothesize some
kind of instantaneous structural relation that coordinates and holds the
universe together in a predictable manner. If we can infer universal
instantaneity, then time can only be understood in this sense. This notion
implies a form of absolute space that remains constant regardless of the
changing and dynamic dispositions of the entities within its dimensions.
If
light travels at a constant speed, we can infer that the speed and distance it
travels to reach a particular distant point from its source, is in fact greater
than the actual absolute and "instantaneous" distance between the
origin point and the destination point. This difference between the absolute and
relative distances between points is based upon a constant proportion derivative
of the Pythagorean theorem. Basically, it will be the square root of the square
of the speed of light per unit of time measured minus the square of the time
duration of light. There would be a specific angle subtended by light that would
be the measure of the difference between the relative and the instantaneous.
There would be a curve that would open infinitely upon the horizon of
instantaneity. We must speculate that upon this curve, there is in the other
direction, of the very small, a point of singularity that would be infinitely
approached but never reached as well.
In this model, it is clear that universal instantaneity, or
what I call the simultaneity principle, is complementary to the principle of
singularity. As we approach an infinitely small point, or origin, time is
expanded infinitely, just as we approach an infinitely large range, time is
dilated to nothing. If we think about gravitational systems in reference to such
a construct, we must understand that if a black hole can be said to approach
singularity upon the continuum, then we must speculate upon some kind of energy
field that may approach simultaneity characterized by timelessness.
If we speculate on a non-zero state model of the universe,
that there can be no final singularity in the universe, then we must also
speculate that their can be no absolute simultaneity as well, as this would
imply a fundamental discontinuity of the structure of space time. Just as we
hypothesize in a non-zero state model that there cannot be nothing, we can
speculate that one and the same thing cannot simultaneously occur in two
different places at the same time. This would be implied by universal
simultaneity. Either occurrence would violate the fundamental continuity of
structure of the physical universe. Thus we must speculate that zeroeth-entities
may in fact exist and approach universal instantaneity, but not completely or
absolutely.
If this model were even remotely true, then we must speculate
that the entropy associated with a black hole would be related to the reduction
of its mass to the singularity, and the associated energy fields associated with
this occurrence that would unite this entity with the structure of the universe.
Energy would transmit almost instantaneously across the universe from a black
hole, and do so on a continuous basis. In a sense, a black hole could be seen as
a source of feeding the universe with its most essential ingredients,
redistributing its constituent energy-entities back into the universal
black-body field.
The range of interest to me is that lying below the curve,
beyond the limit imposed by the speed of light. Furthermore, I will speculate
that the curve constitutes the relative rates at which periodic processes occur
in space-time. In a relativistic model of the universe, the limit of light speed
itself would be the horizon beyond which no periodic processes can occur. In an
instantaneous state model, periodic processes may yet occur beyond this limit,
to the horizon of the infinitely fast.
In other words, we can claim that if the Universe is
instantaneously co-occurring, then there is an absolute universal space occupied
by the physical universe that has absolute dimensionalities and is a priori to
our experience or observation of reality.
The second notion that relates the universal relativity of
the field to a classical view is related to Newton's idea of "action at a
distance" which also implies instantaneity of cause and effect. It is
believed that gravitation as a form of energy must travel at the speed of light,
which would make impossible in a relativistic universe any action at a distance.
But this leaves us in a conundrum of understanding how very large structures in
the universe can "hang together" in some coherent and isotropic
manner, as for instance, large galaxies or clusters.
Instantaneous action is implicit to the notion of universal
co-occurrence, but generally it is regarded that there can be no direct or
deterministic relationship between independent events that occur at the same
time in very distant places from one another. General relativity in fact demands
a sense of relative independence of all co-occuring event structures in the
universe. All events are time ordered, such that any event can only be a result
of some previous set of events, and not the result or simultaneous reaction to
events that happen elsewhere at the same time.
But there is a sense that all simultaneous events are
"unified" in some mysterious manner in that their co-occurrence is
always somehow coordinated and tuned to happen at the same time, and in such a
manner as to preserve the overall integrity and continuity of the field. In
other words, the universe appears in a basic sense to be completely synchronized
with itself, such that everything instantaneous happens at exactly the same
"time" whatever the relative time dilation of the event structure.
Furthermore, the net consequence of all separately occurring but simultaneous
events always appears to maintain a sense of overall conservation of net value.
Whatever kinds of change dynamics might be occurring in any given local area,
there appears to be an total overall balance of basic factors or forces that are
the causes and effects of those events. This can only be understood from the
standpoint that all locally occurring events are contextually grounded within a
larger frame of reference, such that there is always a final equation that equal
to zero if we subtract the total values of the event from its complementary
contextual structure in which it takes place.
In the largest sense, this context that frames all events is
the universal field itself. We can say that all events in the universe are local
transition events, and all events share the same background field in which they
take place and by which they are constrained in the same basic ways.
Furthermore, all events that are simultaneous are united within this field, and
this field seems to function in ways we do not understand to maintain the
overall integrity and to constrain all co-occurring event such that they cannot
be disruptive of the underlying structural integrity of the field.
In a sense, an instantaneous universe is in effect a
thermodynamically perfect universe. We can understand the difference between the
relative and instantaneous structure of simultaneous events in the universe as
the difference between the entropic constraints upon thermodynamic systems in
the former relativistic case, and what would otherwise be perfect in cause and
effect if thermodynamic constraints did not apply. In such a perfect universe,
there would be no entropic constraints of thermodynamic systems, and in this
sense, entropy is the measure of difference.
Evidence suggests that gravitational systems are in basic
ways non-thermodynamic in the conventional sense, though they may be
gravitationally dynamic in an equivalent sense. If this is the case, it hints at
the possibility that gravitation does not strictly obey the same rules that
thermodynamic systems abide by. One of the constraints that gravitational
systems may disobey is the constraint of the speed of light. If this were the
case, then we can conjecture that we would experience the gravitational effects
of very remote and very large events in the universe before we would be capable
of observing these events. A massive event would send out a gravitational shock
wave that would race in front of the explosive light field that would follow. It
would also follow that the gravitational compass and structure of a system would
always be larger, over a given time, than its co-occurring electromagnetic sphere
associated with that system.
Because we assume that any thermodynamic system will behave
in predictable ways compared to any similar system in all areas of the universe,
we conjecture that the same rules are applicable universally, albeit perhaps in
variable ways. This is the basis for understanding the principles of universal
relativity. Hence, the same patterns of entropy would constrain the same
thermodynamic system in the same way anywhere that system occurred in the
universe, and it would also constrain any number of similar such systems in the
same ways. Entropy as this naturally occurs in the universe, as a basic kind of
constraint affecting all thermodynamic systems, is the basis for understanding
the integrity of the universal field.
To the extent that the universal field contains
electromagnetic energy, that field can be said to be entropically constraining
and constrained. To the extent that this same field can be said to contain
gravitationally energy, this same field can be said to be defined by mass-based
constraints. It is inertially constraining and constrained. Mass is the relative
measure of inertial constraint upon any mechanical system, just as heat is the
relative measure of entropic constraint upon the same system. Equivalence,
furthermore, tells us that in a fundamental sense these values are conserved in
all conversions and transactions. I would claim that both are composed
ultimately of the same essential ingredients, or what can be referred to as
"energy-entities" that define the limits and constituents of each
form, albeit in fundamentally different ways. Another way of saying this is to
claim that inertia is the complement of entropy.
Gravity is the realization of a fundamental form of inertial
imbalance between any two mass-based systems. Gravitational energy appears to
cause gravity. Inertial imbalance is equivalent to a difference of temperature
between two systems--the two systems must interact until the balance of inertia
and temperature is achieved between them. The acceleration or constant stable
motion of a satellite in relation to its gravitational source is equivalent to
the decrease of temperature of a high temperature system to achieve equilibrium
with the surrounding system. In a sense, these appear to be two diametrically
contraposed expectations. Gravitational systems seem to attract to a common
origin point, while entropic systems seem to broadcast away from a common
origin. In general, thermodynamic systems seek to decrease the overall
temperature of the system, where as gravitational systems naturally seek to
increase the overall mass of the system.
The only basic difference that appears to account for these
two different systems on a quantum level is the charge dissociation of the
electron from its proton complement within the context of the nucleonic
structure. This charge dissociation of the electron gives rise to an
electromagnetic field from which photonic radiation is emitted. Gravitation as a
system appears to be more basic than that of electromagnetic radiation, and this
observation is consonant with the fact that force-wise, gravitation is a much
weaker force than electromagnetic radiation, even if it is more basic and in a
sense, more pervasive. Most particulate entities appear to have mass and
gravitational effects, even light itself, however residual, but not all
particulate entities appear to have charge and magnetic fields associated with
them.
*****
Another way of approaching the problem of the equivalence of
entropy and inertia, and of mass and energy, is to ask why is the speed of light
that exact speed, and not one percent slower or faster, and not instantaneous.
The speed of light as a universal constant that constrains space-time in
relativistic ways appears almost to be arbitrarily specific--as if the dial of
our speed limit were set to that exact number and no other by the hand of the
creator.
I speculate that the speed of light is defined mechanically
by the rate of spin of the constituent entities with which electromagnetic
radiation is associated, which would be the electron. I speculate that an
electron has a constant rate of unitary spin that can only perhaps slow down as
the result of some kind of Compton effect, but normally never changes. If this
is true, then we can calculate the constant rate of spin of an electron if we
know its average size. We can speculate that the mass of a particulate entity is
defined by its ratio of size to its rate of spin. A larger, slower spinning
particle will have greater mass than a small and fast-spinning particle. Spin
appears to offset gravitational effects of mass by means of centrifugal or
gyroscopic displacement. Electro-magnetic moment of a particle is created by the
relative displacement of a particle about one of its axis of spin. An uncharged
particle will be one that is spinning about two sets of axi simultaneously, one
parallel to the main axis of its directional orientation, what I call first
order spin, and the other perpendicular to this axis. An electron is formed by
the axial dissociation of a nucleonic particle about its minor axis, resulting
in an electro-magnetic field that overlays a weakened gravitational field.
If electromagnetic force is the binding energy that keeps an
electron about a nucleus, then it is possible that gravitational force is the
binding energy that holds constituent n-particulates together to create the
range of naturally occurring subatomic particles. It is the glue that holds
matter together as we understand this, and it acts on all particulate entities
that exhibit mass. Gravitational energy would be liberated from a nucleonic
particle, much like active radioactive decay, in a similar manner that
electromagnetic radiation is emitted from the shell of an orbiting electron when
it jumps between levels. We can speculate in this model that a nucleonic
particle would be regularly "shifting" its weight or balance in a
periodic manner, resulting in the emission of gravitational radiation. If this
is correct, then it is to be conjectured that gravitational radiation is very
similar to electromagnetic radiation, and will exhibit discrete
"spectrographic" patterns in relation to the original particulate that
gave rise to the radiation. We can refer in other words to a gravitational
spectrum much as we understand the electromagnetic spectrum. I would say that
the two forms of energy are almost the identical, except that gravitational
radiation is not charge bound. It is expected that the amplitudinal
characteristics of gravitation are many orders of magnitude smaller than the
equivalent characteristics of light. I speculate furthermore that the periodic
processes associated with gravitation would be of much longer wave-length, or of
larger frequency, in ratio to its amplitude, compared to that of light.
I would speculate that gravitational radiation might have
other characteristics separating it from that of electromagnetic radiation.
First, I speculate that whereas light propagates in one direction defined by its
magnetic axis, gravitation propagates in two directions simultaneously, and
these would be at 45 degree angles from that expected if it were magnetically
polarized. Furthermore, I speculate that the propagation of gravitation may be
reciprocal--occurring in both directions at the same time, rather than being
unidirectional.
We can furthermore speculate that if gravitational radiation
propagates in both directions simultaneously, its effect is to unite distant
objects together in a common field. The field-lines of such a system would occur
simultaneously throughout the system between the two objects in gravitational
relation with one another, unlike that of light. In light, electro-magnetic
field-lines would essentially travel with the wave front at its speed, and thus
always experience broadcast transmission away from its source, which would
account for entropy in such a system.
Gravitational unification would be seen as a means in which
distant objects achieve spin-synchronization of their constituent elements
through reciprocation of the gravitational field. The gravitational field is
always unified, in a sense, unlike the electro-magnetic field that is always
fleeting away. If the gravitational field extends out to infinity in all
directions, it does so by incorporating by ever decreasing degrees everything
within its compass.
Gravitational radiation as a distinct quantum could
potentially occur within a field in two places with equal probability, and it
would in essence become half its total field strength.
From this model, whereas an electron emits a strong
electromagnetic force, it has almost no gravitational or extremely weak
gravitational properties associated with it, thus it interacts only slightly
within the gravitational field, or, in other words, in a relatively mass
independent sense. On the other hand, heavy atomic nucleons emit very weak
electro-magnetic radiation if any at all, but have comparably much stronger
gravitational forces associated with its mass concentration. Hence, such
nucleonic entities interact much more strongly in a gravitational field.
Oblation of distant massive bodies in a gravitational field
can be seen as the compression and squeezing of the body about the center in
relation to the distortion of the dynamic gravitational field in which it is
situated. We might speculate that the overall shape of an object corresponds to
the shape of the gravitational field in which it is embedded in space-time.
Gravitational unification in general tends to seek a spherical shape, as this
is the most unidirectionally stable and uniform. Gravitational planes of
accretion develop as the result of the differential of gravitational strength
of fields in gravitationally unified or mass bound objects.
It is expected that nucleonic entities might demonstrate a
form of rotational precession or vibration as a result of shifting or periodic
processes in gravitational fields. This nucleonic vibration might affect the
magnetic field associated with such charged particles, and may form the basis
for a gravitational sensing device.
To summarize, I must speculate on the possibility that
gravitation might actually travel faster than the speed of light, and in some
forms, approach instantaneity. If gravitation occurs at different levels as a
kind of well system, then we can speculate that unlike the speed of light which
is constant, the speed of different forms of gravitation may be quite variable
and wide ranging.
Cosmological
Models
The
red shift seems to demonstrate that with increasing depths of observational
space-time, there are increasing recessional velocities of galaxies. This is the
conventional explanation of a so-called expanding universe. If the most distant
objects are moving away from us at the greatest speeds, we must conclude that
because these objects are the earliest objects we can see in the universe, the
universe was expanding more rapidly in its earlier phases than it is at present.
This would imply that the current universe is not expanding faster, but slowing
down in a possible expansion.
But red shift may actually tell us more about
the long-term state-path trajectory through "empty" space than about
the actual disposition or original motion of its source of origin. It may tell
us for instance that light may lose its own energy to its background field over
very long stretches of space-time. Very old and well traveled light may be
intrinsically weaker than when it started out. Such a transition would be
gradual and relatively consistent in ratio to the distances implied in the
observation. Because light cannot shift in its velocity, the transition can only
be experienced in terms of its wave-length and frequency. It may be that such
shifting may be variable depending upon different sources and different
intervening gravitational fields that light must traverse, bending it here and
stretching it there.
*****
Entropy and the
Central Dogma of Energy Organization
This
model is ideologically illegitimate and paradigmatially incorrect, but it does
not preclude the possibility of big bang events, as major cosmic episodes,
having occurred, at least upon some regional level. The near exclusive
acceptance of the big bang model can only be explained in terms of Kuhnian
paradigmatics, and the natural human symbolic tendency towards ideological
closure when dealing with unknown and uncertain variables. The acceptance of the
received Big Bang model is regarded as uncritical and counter-intuitive to much
of the evidence, and to a broader picture of the structure and processes in
physical reality.
A
theory of the unified field begins with an understand that upon a fundamental
level all physical things or entities with physical properties are of the same
kind, and are only differential expressions of this basic essence--consequences
of different state-path trajectories. In this manner, we can find the unity of
thermodynamic energy, gravity and matter as being equivalent to one another, and
the basis of this universal equivalence is in the fact that all may represent
permutations of the same basic set of fundamental states. I find that
gravitational energy is probably more basic than thermodynamic energy, and
thermodynamic energy is more basic than matter, hence matter may be reducible to
heat energy and heat energy may be reducible to gravitational energy. Even
gravitational energy may ultimately be reducible to some more basic form of
pattern or process that I call "spime" and that incorporates the basic
properties of space and time. This outlines what I will call the central dogma
of the physical universe--more complex structures and states are built up from
more basic and fundamental structures and states. There is an order of creation
as well as one of causation in the physical universe, and we cannot therefore
hypothesize the derivation of simpler and less complex states from the
preexistence of more complex states. To understand this central dogma in the
framework of thermodynamics and the laws of entropy, we must see that the order
in the universe is achieved stochastically and self-organizationally. The
relative efficiency of a form of natural work is accomplished through the
organization and transformation of change events in some informationally logical
manner. What is observed is the consequence of the overall tendency for all
ordered states to seek a condition of maximum disorder, after the fact of their
original organization.
The
observation that all working systems are by definition finite systems, and are
always contained within a set of larger surroundings for which it exhibits
ultimately entropic effects, leads to the logical conclusion that the total
universe must be infinite in extent. No matter what the scale or size of the
working system we may specify for the universe, we can always see that this
system will be contained within and constrained by a larger set of surroundings.
If
the universe is extensively infinite, we may also assert as well that it may be
intensively infinite as well, or infinitesimally reducible. In other words, in
such a universe, there are no fundamental irreducible entities or states, but
the structure of the universe may be said to be reducibly componential and
constituent. Any self-consistent system, characterized by emergent properties,
can be said to be a super-system that is composed of smaller subsystems in
dynamic interrelationship to one another.
We
may also say that the universe, because it is infinite, must also be essentially
eternal--it has lasted forever, and has had therefore not ultimate beginning and
will have no end.
The
universal field that I write about is in essence the background field within
which all kinds of physical phenomena are naturally configured, albeit in very
different and often very dynamic ways. This field is mostly perceived by us as
being a vast emptiness, a vacuum of nothingness that is filled with the debris
and consequences of an original big bang event. And yet, in every instance of an
event of whatever kind, this background field appears to exhibit fundamental
properties that cannot be violated under any circumstances. I no longer see the
universe as a vast emptiness filled with stars and planets and light and
hydrogen gas. I see it as an invisible sea of a mysterious ethereal medium that
is composes everything contained within it. An electron, a sun, a moon, these are
all merely physical variants of concentration and coordination of this basic and
most fundamental of substances
It
is perhaps a misnomer to call it a substance, as it is not like the phase states
of matter, either as a gas, a liquid or a solid, though some of its propertiesmay resemble any of these alternate phase patterns in an analogical
manner. It is not composed of reducible little "things" or entities,
though such things may be one of its most omnipresent modes of expression. It is
not even just an event or even a process of an ongoing series of events--events
are fundamentally conditioned and constrained by it and are perhaps the indirect
result of it. Gravitational and relativistic effects seem to be its most basic
form of expression, or at least its most directly available consequences. I have
termed the name "spime" as a portmanteau of "space-time" to
describe this fundamental physical "state."
We
may find in the conception of spime therefore the basis for a unified theory of
physical reality in the sense that we can see all physical entities, events and
states to be derivative of and composed of the differential organization of
spime in the universe. All energy exchange events that occur, including both
thermodynamic and gravitational events, are fundamentally the interchange and
reorganization of spime upon a fundamental level. Spime can therefore be said to
be the common currency of exchange for all kinds of physical phenomena, and to
underlie the differential patterning of such phenomena upon a fundamental level
of organization. It is difficult to think of physical reality in these terms
because we are trained and are used to seeing reality in terms of
"entities" or things that interrelate to one another via
"forces" and energies. It was Einstein who first gave us a vision of
reality that allowed us to define the equivalence of energy and matter, and to
see the relativistic behavior of both in fundamentally inseparable space-time.
It
is difficultindeed to
conceptualize spime as any "thing" or even as a force or energy. It is
neither a substance nor a force or energy. It exists, I suppose, more as a kind
of infinite possiblity, or perhaps, a potentiality for the realization of some
event, than as anything in and of itself. We might say simply that "spime
happens" and it is by its happening that it becomes known in terms of its
consequences that we experience in reality. I believe, for instance, that
evidence suggests that spime flows isotropically upon a local and even regional
scale. Its flow pattern is not unlike the fluid dynamics of any kind of liminar
flow. At the same time, this flow pattern is different structurally because it
appears to occur in a stratified manner, such that flows may be contained within
larger currents, and it appears as well that it not only flows but exhibits
other characteristics of "stretching" and possible
"twisting" of structure that confers upon it a semi-rigid and
infinitely elastic conformation. At the same time, as a kind of low pattern, it
exhibits no apparent resistance or friction. Resistance appears to be
experienced in the form of inertia to acceleration.
*****
I
have arrived at a reducible cosmological theory of the total universe that
predicts that it is "flat" in a larger non-isotropic manner and that
it is basically open and infinite in extent. It can be said to be expanding in
terms of its total size or volume, but this expansion of "empty space"
is on some level in equilibrium with the production of new energy and matter on
a continuous basis due to relative isotropic disconformities within the larger
structure. We may reduce an atomic model and fundamental subatomic entities to
the interactions ofa basic
particle and its anti-particle, namely the electron and its associated positron,
which can be construed as nothing but a photon that is polarly enclosed upon
itself such that its normal directional momentum is translated into the angular
momentum of its spin-moment. Gravitation can be said to be a spiraling set of
field-lines within the surrounding space-time matrix that occurs as a result of
the formation of matter from energy via complex positron-electron pair
interactions, with the addition possibly of other neutrinos and gluons.
Gravitational energy therefore resembles light energy in its basic structure and
composition, though in a complementary manner. We cannot state what the ultimate
origins of the universe have been, because in an eternal and infinite state
universe, there was no beginning and there will be no end. It has always just
existed albeit in a developmentally dynamic manner.
I
refer to this model as the dynamic state universe and I invoke several
principles of universal relativity and simultaneity and complementarity to
explain its basic structural order.
There
is a sense that space-time has a substantive and structural quality suggesting
that it is an alternative state of reality to matter and energy, and that in its
essential form it is equivalent to these alternative states. If this is correct,
then a great many ramifications are forthcoming from the model for the shape,
origin and structural processes which govern the universe and our physical
reality. If space-time does have such a quality, then it can be thought of as
possessing,something like water, a
great and tremendous stability that is linked to a very high threshold of its
state-transitions. It becomes in essence a very stable form of reality,
especially compared to energy which is forever escaping, and compared to matter,
which is subject to radioactive decay processes as well as other chemical state
transformations. The main property associated with space-time, conceived as a
kind of substance or a general form or state of physical reality, is that it
appears to interact gravitationally with both matter and energy, and appears to
be the primary mechanism for the explanation of gravitational fields and
phenomena in the universe.
It
is likely therefore, given this model, that "empty" space-time is the
most fundamental physical state possible in our universe, and this state in fact
harbors a tremendous amount of invisible energy, or potential energy, that is
primarily expressed in the form ofgravitation,
but secondarily also in the form of thermodynamic interactions. Gravitational
energetics characteristic of space-time suggest a set of laws of gravitational
dynamics that are complementary toand
probably encompass thermodynamic principles, which becomes therefore a
"covering law model" for a more comprehensive theory of energy
exchange dynamics which accounts for gravitational phenomena.
We
do not normally realize energy from space-time except in the form of gravitation
and derivative heat energy. Itsappearance
as invisible and essentially vacuous in our experiments derives from its other
peculiar qualities. We may say in a sense that it is composed of energy-event
entities that are so miniscule, that they compose everything in reality, and
they are, by themselves, without higher level organization that goes into normal
forms of energy and matter, essentially invisible. The only other way that we
may experience its effects are in the sense of time and motion, which are its
other two effects, or rather, constraints on physical systems. From this
standpoint, the infinite speed of light might be interpreted as the same
essential property that confers upon matter its constant intrinsic mass, which
in reality can be interpreted as its "self gravity" as a form of
space-time. Light is not bound spatially to a single coordinate reference
system, but it otherwise exhibits a peculiar temporal constancy, expressed as
velocity, which is similar to matter in terms of its intrinsic mass
characteristics. We can understand this relationship very well in terms of the
equivalence of mass to energy as a function of the speed of light.
One
of the basic properties of space-time, conceived substantively, is that it would
exhibit, or would at least be expected to exhibit, a near perfect smoothness if
its field were unperturbedor were
perfectly non-isotrope in character, which seems to be a final entropic state
that its systems tend toward. It is a derivative property therefore of
space-time that all transitions that do occur in the universe are not disjunct,
but are smoothed by an intervening set of temporal and spatial variables. In
other words, one cannot jump from a zero velocity, relative to a fixed position
on earth, to 100 or 100,000 miles an hour, without going through a continuous
series of integral transitions that allows one to reach in a non-disjunctive way
this final speed. It should be kept in mind that this is a limitation of matter,
not of energy. Energy jumps automatically to light speed, and maintains this
speed indefinitely, and no other speed (excepting interveningvariables). Energycan
exist, in other words, at no other state than that allowed for it by the
structure of space-time. I take this to be the speed of active propagation of an
energy field in space-time. It is a "self-energized" speed--unlike
that of matter it does not take extra energy to make it happen or to accelerate
it or decelerate it to some other speed.
Temporal
Relativity
The
conventional scientific definition of time is as a perfectly linear and constant
process. This is how it is conventionally measured and thought of. The model of
the dynamic state universe rests upon what can be called both a nonlinear and
non-0constant model of time, or what can be called logarithmic or exponential time
that is dependent upon the relative size, motional dynamics and energetics of a
system. Einsteinian geometry of space-time is dependent upon such a non-linear
conception of time. We may say that even though the universe can be said to be
universally synchronous and simultaneous, the rates at which time proceeds is
quite variable and this yields a model of the universe that is not uniform
throughout or structurally homogenous, though it is non-isotrope.
If
we understand time to be the rate at which a natural process occurs, the rate by
which we measureor determine
transformation and change, it is quite evident then that some processes occur at
a much faster rate than others. It is not so evident that these rates of change
depend upon the larger frame in which the physical processes occur,such that the same setsof
processes will proceed at fundamentally different rates depending upon the
relative frame in which it is occurring. This leads to a kind of paradox,
because, according to our theory, the local uniformities of mechanical process
in a system are relatively independent of the larger, indirect frames that
occur, with the idea that these relationships with larger frames become
basically "insensible," or, preferably put, imperceptible in any
direct sense. But it follows that the same system, if it can be part of larger
systems, as the earth is part of the solar system that is part of a galaxy,
then it is also possible that in relation to each system, the earth will have a
"clock" of periodic processes coordinate to that system.
Unless we
specify that only sensible time can apply, it is possible that, like each object
theoretically being part of an infinite number of motions, a number of different
clocks may apply to the same exact object, depending upon the larger system that
it is framed within. It clock pertinent to a system would depend entirely upon
the point of view of the observer attached to or that is a part of that system
on some level. If we could shrink ourselves to the size of small molecules, it
is possible that our observations of the machinery of cells proceeded on a
normal time frame, and not at the acceleratedrates they are observed to behave in normal human sized dimensions.
Only
the sensible system therefore would appear to be the one in which the expression
of temporal measure would be relevant, and we must ask if not the sensibleness
of the system, its "presentational immediacy" does not account for its
temporality.
We
must speculate whether or not an object, as an object, has its own internal
clock at all, or is just a part of a larger system of clocks that appears
somehow coordinate with one another. If I were to build a completely independent
automaton, then its own sense of a clock would be one of the first things I
would give to it, like the tin man's ticking heart. Or is time a phenomenon that
seems to be completely relative to the point of view of the observer? The answer
I believe lies somewhere in the middle ground, in the relationship shared
between the observer and the thing observed. Time is a relationship that defines
the observational period.
Looked
at another way, if we are traveling at a snail's pace, and we see a rocket
zooming by us at 90% the speed of light, our image of the rocket at this speed
would be very different than it if we were traveling at our own rate. We know
that for every second ticked off on the near-light speed rocket, at least 10 or
more seconds will have ticked off in our pockets. Clearly, the rate of ticking
of the clock aboard the light rocket is somehow at least partially determined by
the rate of speed that ship is traveling, relative to ourselves. At no point
during the acceleration of the ship will its clocks be observed to proceed any
faster. Periodic processes appear to exist in inverse proportion to the speed of
motion with which something travels.
TV(m)
= q
Where
T is the amount of time elapsed per unit, and V is the speed at which something
is traveling, and q is the total speed as a ratio of the speed of light
We
can understand this clearly with the relationship of frequency and wavelength of
electromagnetic radiation to light speed, such that:
nb
= c
where
n is frequency (measure of periodic interval)
and b is wavelength (measure of distance per unit
time) and c is the known constant speed of light
Whereas
light speed is always constant, the speed of different objects tends to be
variable, though the speed of these things remains continuous if no interfering
or perturbing forceaffects its
trajectory. This speed of mass-bound matter is always known to be some
percentage of the total speed of light, and can be expressed as such. For any
system at some speed X of the total speed of light, the periodic processes
associated with that object (as measureable indirectly by the diffraction lines
of the light spectrum, or "red shift") and its speed covered per unit
time, can be expected to be in constant equilibrium. (If light from very distant
galaxies appears tobe increasingly
red shifted, we cannot infer any overall directionality of such a system: if the
system is "expanding" it is expanding omnidirectionally in terms of
the space-time manifold between, or else it is expanding non-isotropically, or
else it may reveal a larger structure of the universe that is very large and
that is isotropic in some general direction). The relationship of X over light
speed is really a measure of the total energy of a system, which can be
expressed bythe manipulation of
the equation of equivalence:
if
E
= mc2
Therefore,
by substitution
c
=
ÖE/m
And,
thus
m
= E/(E/m)
and
we can express an equilibrium of:
1
= E/(E/m)
where
m is the total mass of a system (a measure of its gravitational effect) and E is
the total energy of a system. In this system, time becomes determined by the
gravitational potential of a system and its total energy, which can be expressed
as its mechanical inertia of displacement as a system.
I
would claim that q = c in the equations above, we can substitute
The
total value of time attributed to the system is set by the total gravitational
potential of the system, or rather, its total Energy as a function of its motion
and inertia of displacement. In other words, the total energy of a system is
what sets the clock of the system to a certain rate, and no other rate, just as
its motional velocities are set at a certain speed, and no other speed. It is
known that the gravitational potential of a system is determined by its total
mass, or what I have termed its total atomic size less the net mass defect of
the integrated system.
The
unification of a gravitational system can only be seen as the synchronization of
all event structures occurring within that system by means of gravitation
structure. All periodic processes are set to the same tempo within this system,
and this must have reference to the common center of gravity of the system in a
larger matrix. Time measured as a relative phenomenon is a consequence of this
unification. This unification is set also to a single common direction in
motion. Anysystem can share only
one relationship between the common center of gravitational orientation and a
single direction of motional orientation. The same system though, can be
involved in larger systems ofmotional
orientation, if the gravitational frames of reference incorporate the entire
unified system as a component subsystem. There theoretically can be an infinite
number of such nested systems, which defines a well system for relativistic
mechanics such that the temporal processes relevant to one subsystem do not
apply to its larger metasystems.
This
is a model of the overall universe, as a well system. It follows that very large
structures would demonstrate red-shifting, reflecting increasing velocities that
are independent of the structures they contain. The largest gravitationally
unified structures we appear to observe are possibly clusters and super-clusters
of galaxies, which may exhibit some gravitational isotrope of structure. There
may be even larger configurations of gravitationallyunified systems. In theory there would be no reason not to assume this tobe the case, as a well system, the cosmographical structure of
gravitation should be open and infinite. The larger the structure, the greater
the velocities that can be expected to be obtained by the components of the
system. High velocities would be an expectable outcome of relatively weak but
pervasive gravitational fields within inter-galactic space.
Motional
energy in empty space-time is therefore a form of potential kinetic energy, or
what can be called the energy of continuous displacement of the gravitational
system that surrounds the object of matter.
The
relativistic difference between matter and energy seems to be that the relative
motions and clock of matter is not set to an independent constant rate, like the
speed of light. This speed of light can be seen to be directionally unbound. If
light makes up matter, then we can see it forming matter in terms of its
continuous spin and angular momentum about a polar moment or several moments. We
can call the speed of light the intrinsic speed of any physical system, and the
motional speed of an object of mass its extrinsic speed. It is possible that no
system of mass can attain the speed of light and not become intrinsically
unbound as a mass-based system, and thence dissolve into light itself.
Motion
is a way for a system to maintain its internal equilibrium of energy under
conditions in which more energy is being transferred into the system than is
being allowed to pass out of the system, which should in theory remain constant.
Therefore, space-time, or rather its gravitational construct in relation to an
object, will push the object forward in motion, much as an object is pushed to
the ground under the "weight" (or rather pressure) of gravity. It is
the disequilibrium of the surrounding space-time construct that propels an
object continuously forward in some direction--this propellance only happens
once, but it is enough to distort the surrounding manifold on a permanent basis.
Time
is a measure therefore of a systems relation to its surroundings that is
expressible in terms of transformation between the system and its surroundings.
If the intrinsic system remains unchanged, then its temporal process is a
function of its directional motion. If we lived in a non-dynamic universe, we
would have no sense of time--time would be insensible. If there were no motion
in our universe, time would be immeasurable.
All
motions therefore in a generally relativistic universe appear obey this
principle. This relationship of motional systems (and by extension, of
mechanical systems) can only be understood if the object is seen in physical
relationship to its surroundings
Radioactive
decay is a clear case in point. All isotopes of elements are known to decay at
regular rates to more stable and less radioactive forms. This process of decays
certainly results in the internal transformation of elements, and is a process
that can be said to be purely internal to any object of matter in question. We
could use it quite naturally as an example of a completely internal periodic
process, hence a "clock" that, like Radiocarbon-14 dating, allows us
to determine the age of matter. The variability of half-lives associated with
different elements and their isotopes appear to be without any overarching
rules. Some half-lives are very long, others quite short-lived.
We
must inquire into the possible relationship of the speed of light to the
intrinsic energy of a system. For instance, if light composes matter, then what
kinds of motions, vibrational, rotational or translational, would be available
to that energy. Would the frequency of light be related to its rate of spin?
Entropy and
Degrees of Freedom
It
is apparent that the universe is highly ordered process on a very fundamental
level. All motions are regulated by universal principles. Motions occur in
instantaneously discrete directions. It must be asked whether an object in
motion is following a trajectory that is the minimum or maximum entropy possible
for that system in its given state. There appears to be a minimal but inviolable
directional constraint to the system, and this will be related to its
synchronized clock as well as to the translational center of gravity of the
system. At the same time, changing this direction to any angle or degree of
deflection , or altering the velocity of the system, would require the input of
additional energy to the system.
It
is apparent that empty space-time is maximally entropic, and that light energy
has less entropy than empty space-time but greater entropy than matter. If this
is the natural ordering of reality, then we can expect that space-time is the
sink to which all other physical processes return, and from which they are
derived. The model of the dynamic state universe is based upon this
presupposition, though it may not necessarily be correct.
In
energy systems, there appears to be two constraints, directionality and
velocity, while in
Matter
can be said to constitute its own internalized field system--the energy it
contains is bound up in such a manner as to perpetually spin in tight orbits
that are barely the diameter of a nucleon. Energy thus bound up seems to affect
gravitational field-lines in a way fundamentally different than when energy is in
its normal propagative field pattern. This suggests that gravitational fields
interact with energy fields in critical ways, and it is possible to see the
field-lines that connect the two fields, whatever their shape orform, as being structural features of relationship. First, concentrated
energy in matter seems to result in concentrated gravitational fields
surrounding the matter and converging upon the center of gravity within the
matter. Propagative energy patterns seems to result in dispersive gravitational
fields.
The
relationship between spime, energy and matter will reveal the basis of the
relationship between gravitational energy and light energy. We do not understand
this relationship completely. It remains an essential mystery about the
structure of reality and the fundamental order of the universe.
Spime
appears on one hadto have
self-mass, and yet it appears to offer absolute no resistance to the motion of
either matter or energy through space. It is difficult to reconcile this sense
of contradiction. On the other hand, it does appear to offer inertial resistance
to the change of speed or direction of motion. We can only reconcile this if we
understand that it is not the object or energy packet that is necessarily
traveling through spime, but a capsule of spime itself that contains these
things that is traveling through spime. Even if this is the case, the
gravitational relationship between the mass object and its spime manifold appear
to be unaltered by the directional velocity. It is only altered by a change in
these properties. We can understand this better perhaps if we hypothesize that
spime is of an essentially ambiguous nature. It is simultaneously present and
not present. It may be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, only 50%
evanescent 50% of the time.
Another
way of seeing spime is in the form of its inherent complementarity of
relationship, such that we if we seek to assess its "rest mass" we end
up with one set of properties, while if we seek to assess its
"integrity" as a system in terms of its resistance, we get another set
of properties, and therefore how we are understanding the phenomenon of spime
depends upon the instruments we use and the way we seek to observe its reponse
to our physical systems. We might see spime as simultaneously a kind of gas,
liquid and solid. If we seek to assess its pressure values as gravitational
energy, we might assess it in the form of a gas. If we seek to understand its
inertial values, we might assess it as a kind of fluid dynamic liquid. If we
seek to assess its manifold configuration in space, we might do best to model it
as a kind of flexible solid. The behavior of light energy in spime is unique and
characteristic to light energy. The behavior of solid objects of matter in spime
is unique and characteristic of these objects.
Gravitational
energy for the most part appears to be the response of spime to systems of
matter. Light field phenomena may be the response of spime to systems of energy
propagation. Inertial effects appear to be the response of spime to properties
of motion and translational energy.
*****
The
greatest mystery of physical reality is this relationship between space-time,
matter and energy. The scientific solution to this puzzle is not obvious
because, though we live with these relationships in intimate ways in every
aspect of our lives, the basis for their relationship upon a fundamental level
seems to be beyond our acquired instrumentation and capacity for observation and
analysis. We infer an order in the patterning of these relationships, but the
underlying causes of this sense of structure is not yet fully explicated or
explained in a sufficient manner.
I
have proposed a spime model of space-time as a theoretical explanation for these
relationships, though I have not fully or sufficiently explicatedwhat spime exactly may be or how it functions in a precise manner. I
believe that the existence of spime can be inferred on the basis of
observational evidence and deductive logic derived from this evidence.
We
may say that always, a less entropic system will surround and encompass a more
entropic system. The paradox of this statement is that gravitational energy does
not fit a classical definition of entropy, as its force appears to be
non-entropic and its effects on things in the world appear to function in a
manner that we would call "order producing." On the other hand, how
this is achieved may be in effect an emergent property of relationship to matter
and energy as we observe these things, and underlying this may bea hidden presupposition of complete entropic "order."
It
appears that, under certain conditions, spime can behave as if it has
alternative state properties, and how it is perceived in terms of its effects
and its nature will depend entirely upon the conditions under which it is found
to occur.
I
will state first that time seems to be primarily a temporal process, or, rather,
an a-temporal process. It may be found that time is nothing but the relative
differential of isotropic change under local conditions in the universe. Under
this condition, spime can be thought of as having neither temporality nor
spatiality as basic properties associated with it. If it has neither properties
in either an intensive or an extensive sense, then it can be said to be both
infinite and eternal in extent and intensively.
If
time does not apply here, the same thing can be essentially in more than one
place at the same time. If space does notapply,
the same thing can exist in more than one time in the same space. Under such
conditions, the entire structure of spime in the universe can besaid to be universally instantaneous.
Space,
Omni-directionality and Motion
We
may say that always, a less entropic system will surround and encompass a more
entropic system. The most least entropic system we can consider is one in which
there are an infinite number of degrees of freedom. In such a system, only one
set of constraints can apply, and that is the constraint of time. Temporal
constraint applies universally. All event structures are temporally constrained
and limited, such that all event structures in the universe can be said to be
co-occurring and simultaneous. They co-occur because they are relatively
independent structures. Isee the
temporal unity as the minimal structure necessary for definition of physical
reality, and as providing the most important evidence for asserting that the
universe evolved as a single unitary state structure in time from a common
origin. This temporal constraint determines that a system anywhere and
everywhere it occurs, if it is an ordered system, must be:
1.
finite
2.
contained within a larger disordered system.
3.
nothing other than itself (the same system cannot occur in more than a single
place at a single instant of time).
4.
all motion and change dynamics must be temporally ordered process (i.e.,
processes must change through time and not in a simultaneous manner.)
A
field system in theory represents a system that is potentially propagative
omni-directionally from some origin. We can say that such a field system has an
infinite number of degrees of freedom, minus one. The only operational
constraint of a field system appears to be that of time itself, and given the
relative variability of the temporal dimension in relation to mechanics of
systems, it is possible that this dimension may itself be inherently variable.
If time were no longer a constraint, then we could expect that the universe
would be totally entropic and that there would be no synchronous patterning of
event structures in the universe. The real measure of time is the lapse rate of
an event structure in relation to some observational frame of reference. The
same lapse rate will vary depending upon the motional dynamics of the event
structure itself or the frame of reference from which the event structure is
being observed. At the same time, we may speak of no intrinsic lapse rate that
is absolutely the same for its given event structure regardless of the defining
frame of reference. Regardless, all physical event structures are characterized
by some measure of a lapse rate, and for want of a better term, we may say that
all physical lapse rates in the universe turn in one direction--clockwise, to
put it arbitrarily. This may be more an artifact of our own knowledge and
conventions of thinking about time rather than any property intrinsic to time
itself. In physical systems, lapse rates may occur in any direction, but we must
speculate about the consequences of two different event structures occurring at
the same time and place that had opposite lapse rates. Another way of saying
this is that all time always travels in one forward direction, and one direction
only. Another aspect that seems to unify time as a synchronous event structure
is that it is always relative in the same way to the motional dynamics of the
system that it occurs within. Its pattern of variation is therefore predictable
and depends upon the velocity with which a system is traveling within a given
frame of reference.
All
physically occurring phenomena in the universe appear to be constrained by time,
or, what may be more precisely described as relative periodicity of its
intrinsic rate of occurrence. This intrinsic rate appears furthermore to be
dependent upon the externalmotion
of the system. Transposition through space is equivalent to transformation
through time, and we may refer to such transposition as directionally
constrained translation. Such transposition is constrained by fewer degrees of
freedom than a field system, and hence is considered less entropic in its
consequences.
By
definition, a more entropic system should be more randomly chaotic and less
predictable in its outcomes than a more highly ordered system. Any directional
system can be said to be one that is defined by a coordinate reference system.
It is the requirement of such a coordinate reference system that it should
"hang together" such that all its motions will be coordinate to a
center point. In other words, a system that went in different directions
simultaneously would disintegrate as a system. A system must travel in only one
direction in space and time, and in only one direction only, if it is to remain
coherent as a system. Unidirectional temporal travel is also a condition of its
directionality--such a system can only occupy one point, or set of coordinate
points, at any one "time" even though the point in space nor the time
are necessarily discrete.
The same system cannot occur simultaneously in two
different places.A single
direction can be said to be the translation of a single continuous point through
space-time. Time and space appear to be intrinsically linked and
integrated--nothing can move in time except when expressed in space, and nothing
can move spatially except when expressed through time. All motion in the
universe appears to be constrained in this way. Rotation of a system is one that
is permitted of a larger system that is moving through space-time in a complex
trajectory. This rotational motion is also unidirectional and presents a third
order constraint to motion in systems, but it does not affect the motion of the
larger system in relation to an encompassing frame of reference. There is a
trend in all physical systems at all levels of their integration, that motion at
a higher level becomes rotational motion, and this rotational motion is relative
to the larger frame of reference in which its articulation is permitted and
defined.
All
motion appears to be curvilinear motion in some form or fashion. All direction
is therefore "non-Euclidean" and, as Einstein defined his relativistic
geometry, it is geodesic. Light also appears to be geodesic, and we have to
define its natural arc in empty space-time. Light can be thought to travel in
vary large geodesic orbits that eventually curve back to the starting
point--which is not the true starting point as it would represent an advance in
time. What is being described therefore is a very large spiral pattern in which
time represents the cyclic reiteration of the spiral motion, and we see this
clearly demonstrated with the phase structure of light. If this is true, we
might state that things traveling at faster rates describe what can be called
slower arcs than things traveling slower--time would pass more slowly for the
fast object than the slow object, as the arc of the slower object would be much
sharper and more acute. The slowest object is of course one that is not
apparently moving at all, but is fixed within a defined frame of reference. For
such an object, time accelerates forward in a near-linear manner. The object
appears motionless, except for some imperceptible vibrational motions.
In
this system of screw-threads, all event structures in the universe would
complete essentially the same interval at the same time, the difference being
that the intervals between the faster systems are much longer compared to those
of the slower systems.
It
follows that the speed of an object is merely the function of an object on a
trajectory that is definable by its arc of curve and twist in space-time, like
the thread of a screw. Slower objects have finer screw threads than faster
objects. An object travels at a certain rate depending upon the arc of the
thread that it runs within. An object maintains its arc indefinitely unless a
perturbing force accelerates or decelerates the object, resulting in a
compression or expansion of the arc. This thread itself appears to be defined by
the gravitational structure of space-time.
Is
it possible that the speed of light therefore is a fixed thread, the maximum arc
attainable by a physical system, in part because the mass of light, if it had a
mass, would be equivalent to the normal self-mass of spime. At least we can
understand the relationship of frequency and relationship to light speed
according to this analogy to the screw-thread, if we see frequency as the
vibrational effect of a field-line or vector extending at the speed of light. We
can understand as well that motional systems are nonlinearly relative to their
mass:
We
can conclude from this that the less gravitational influence there is upon a
system, the greater will be its naturally occurring speed of motion. The greater
the gravitational effect, the less slower will such a system travel in motion.
These relationships occur in a non-linear manner.
In
larger gravitational fields, where the ratio of gravitational energy per unit of
space-time will be weaker or less concentrated, it is expected that more massive
systems can achieve more rapid rates of acceleration more readily, and that
light itself will tend towards its least curved trajectory.
Gravitational
field-lines that are defined by the space-time manifold around an object of
matter defines the flow of space-time, or spime, in relation to the object, both
in terms of its direction and its concentration or rate.
The
minimally ordered structure of a system that is temporally structured is
three-space. Time as a physical phenomenon cannot exist in only two or even a
single dimension. It must occur in at least three dimensions simultaneously.
Time can therefore be said to be universally synchronous in structure. We can
draw no boundaries to this structure, it is infinite and open. It is the
curvature of space-time that accounts for this quality, or that is related to
this quality at least.
In
such a structure, any point may be an origin point of a field structure, and
simultaneously the translation point for omni-directional propagation of vectors.
An infinite number of vectors may pass through the same point at the same
instant. There would be essentially
no "points" except in an instantaneous sense. We cannot locate a point
in an exact and discontinuous sense. A point becomes merely relative to that
which it is referenced by. It becomes essentially an arbitrary segment of space
and time. If we could separate duration from the space that we define as
enduring, then we could separate time and space as independent rather than
interdependent properties. At atom can be said to occupy a point, and so might a
unit of an atom, or a photon, but only within the framework of a continuum of
time. We know from quantum theory and indeterminancy that if we can specify the
temporal dimension of a point, we cannot fix its exact location, and if we can
specify an exact location, we can only specify its temporal occurrence at that
point in terms of a probability. As we go to finer and finer grids of size, we
end up with increasing indeterminancy, until, I believe, we reach a point at
which the framework for indeterminancy of time-space of a particular instance
becomes essentially universal. Hence, once we delve below the size of an atomic
nucleus, we end up with a universe that is made up not of discrete entities or
unities, but rather of increasingly indeterminate qualities that are more
definable by their rates or phases of occurrence than by their particulate
properties or structures. At some level, from where we stand at least, the
universe appears to blurinto a
common shade of graywithout finite
distinctions.
The
structure of time is built upon this background field of indeterminancy. The
gravitational relations that define the trajectories and energies of objects in
motion depend upon the background field and its integrity. The curvature of its
four-space geometry is also defined by the indeterminate structure of this
background field.
If
time is dependent upon speed, I believe it may also be dependent upon relative
size of a system, if we define size in terms of its total atomic or nucleonic
number. The larger the system, the slower the clock of time, and the smaller the
system, the more rapid this clock. This provides evidence that time on a very
small scale twists at a much more rapid rate than time that is spread over a
very large framework. If an object were hurdling through empty space at the
speed of light, it would essentially be spread on a fundamental level over a
very much broader area at any instantaneous point--its "instantaneous"
event structure as a "point" of either space or time would be
stretched out and inherently less determinant than if such an object were at
rest. The energy attached to such a system, its momentum, would be equivalent
that the intrinsic energy of a very large system that remained at relative rest
within a gravitational framework.
Space-time
as an indeterminate instantaneous field structure can be thus
"stretched" and condensed and twisted and turned in such a manner that
its indeterminancy may vary in a substantial but always relative manner.
Traveling at high velocities stretches not only the point structure of the
object itself, but it stretches necessarily the manifold that surrounds it at
the same time. This translational stretching becomes a permanent property of the
object.
If
the earth has a momentum from its travel around the sun, this momentum is not
felt on the earth nor does it affect its gravitational field. It would only be
felt in collision with another body in space. Even a falling meteorite does not
necessarily feel this momentum, as such a meterorite becomes integrated
gravitationally into the field of the earth.
