For example in his General Theory of Relativity he derived the causality of gravity in terms of a curvature in the geometry of space and time.

One can understand how in terms of the physical image of a marble on a curved surface of a rubber diaphragm.  The marble follows a circular pattern around the deformity in its surface. Similarly planets revolve around the sun because they follow a curved path in the deformed “surface” of space-time.

In other words he was able to integrate the physicality of gravity into our consciousness in terms of a physical image based on observing a marble moving on a curved surface.

However he was unable to do the same for electrical forces as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.

“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation — for a “unified field” theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einsteinâ€s years than any other activity.

In other words because time is only observed to move in one direction forward, a space-time universe can only support a force that cause movement in one direction towards an object such as gravity. 

However, it would be easier to form a physical image of electrical forces if one converts or transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of only four *spatial* dimensions the because of the bidirectional symmetry of the spatial dimension.

In other words because time is only observed to move in one direction forward, a space-time universe can only support a force that cause movement in one direction towards an object such as gravity while one made up four *spatial* dimensions could support the towards and away or bi-directional movement associated with electromagnetism. Therefore because of the bidirectional symmetry of a spatial dimension it would be easier to form a physical image of electrical forces if one converts or transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of only four *spatial* dimensions.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 to define geometric properties of forces in space-time environment because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.   Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by mathematically defining the geometric properties of time in his space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravitational forces in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and electromagnetism can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This allows one to form a physical image of electrical force as was done in the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 in terms of the differential force caused by the “peaks” and “toughs” of a energy wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the electrical properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a energy wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated  to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a energy wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic energy in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement because classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

This shows how one can define a physician image for the causality electromagnetic forces in terms of the existence of four spatial dimensions.

Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of four-dimensional space-time because as mentioned earlier time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore could not support the bi-directional component of electromagnetic forces.

However this also shows that Einstein was right, as was mentioned above in the  American Institute of Physics article that electromagnetism and gravity can both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure because as was shown above using only valid mathematical rules one can transform his space-time equations to four *spatial* dimensions thereby allowing one to form a clear physical image explaining the causality electromagnetic forces.

It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to create physical images of an unseen “reality” in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in choose terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Electromagnetism: a new perspective Einstein would have like. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Another myth about Black Holes is that they are holes in a space-time metric.  But the volume of a hole by definition cannot be made up of the medium in which it resides.  For example, the volume of a hole in sand cannot contain sand.  Additionally one can always fill in that hole and make it smaller.

But according to theory, a Black Holeâ€s mass is made up of space-time metric while the sounding volume is made up of the same “material”

However when you add mass to a Black Hole it gets bigger..

But, as mentioned earlier observations of our environment tell us that a hole gets smaller not bigger if we add the material that surrounds it to it. 

In other words, why do we call them holes when adding the sounding material causes them to getting bigger not smaller?  

But one of the more mysterious or non-common sense aspects of a Black Hole is how is it possible for an object with a volume bigger than our sun to collapse one-dimensional point or a singularity as physicists like to call it.

In 1915, Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would cause the matter contained in it to collapse to singularity or a one-dimensional point in space it after it has used up its nuclear fuel.

This conclusion is based on the fact that the strength of a stars gravitational field increases as it collapses.  Therefore, current theories predict that at a certain point in time the contraction of a star will produce a gravitational field whose energy is strong enough to cause the complete collapse of the matter.  In other words, the energy of its gravitation field becomes stronger than energy that gives atoms and their components, the protons, neutrons and electrons their volume causing them to collapse to a one-dimensional point in space.

Additionally physicists tell us the properties and laws that govern the environment of a singularity are “mysteriously” hidden from our view because according to them nothing not even energy can escape a black hole.

However, observations of our environment when extrapolated to the formation of a black hole tell a different story.

For example, the heat generated by the gravitational collapse of interstellar gases causes fusion reactions to begin in a star.  The radiation pressure generated by those reactions slows the rate of collapse until and a balance is reached between the energy radiated into space and its volume. 

However, the laws of thermodynamics tells us that in the formation of a black hole some of the heat generated by the gravitational collapse of a star that has used up it nuclear fuel must escape from its environment for it to continue to collapse because if it did not a balance would be established between the radiation pressure generated by that heat and gravity.

Yet according the proponents of black holes nothing not even heat can escape from them after they have collapsed beyond their event horizon.  Therefore, the heat generated by the gravitational collapse of its mass cannot escape. This means that according to laws of thermodynamics the radiation pressure generated by the heat created by its gravitation collapse at the time it passes through its event horizon must prevent its further collapse.

In other words, a star could not collapse to the non-zero volume no matter how massive it is because no energy can escape from a black hole after the formation of its event horizon.  Therefore, it must maintain non-zero volume because the radiation pressure caused by its further collapse will offset the gravitational pressure caused by its mass..

There can be no other interpretation if one accepts the validity of the laws of thermodynamics.

It would be a different story if the energy were allowed to escape because then the gravitational contractive forces could exceed the radiating pressure generated by heat of its collapse and allow it to continue to a one-dimensional point.  However because the formation of an event horizon prevents this from occurring they would eventually have to balance each other thereby preventing its collapse to a singularity. 

(In the article “An alternative to a singularity?” Aug. 15, 2008 we come to the same conclusion using the conceptual arguments based on The General Theory of Relativity.)

This suggests our common sense feeling that it is not possible for the entire mass of star to collapse to a singularity or a one-dimensional point may be valid.

In other words even though there is irrefutable observational evidence that black holes exist, the mysterious singularity that is said to exist at its center may be a myth.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2008

The post Black Holes Mystery and Myths appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Fritz Zwicky first theorized its existence in 1930 after measuring the rotational speed of individual galaxies in several galactic clusters.  He found they could not be predicted by Newton laws of gravity based on mass of all of the visible objects in them.  Therefore, he concluded that these clusters must contain a dark or invisible form of matter.
Later observations of gas clouds in the outer parts of disk like galaxies independently confirmed the fact that approximately 90 percent of the mass in the universe is invisible or undetectable with today’s technology.

However, since the discovery in 1930 by Fritz Zwicky that approximately 90 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible physicists have not been able to determine or agree on its form.

For example, on page 92 of Mario Livio book “The Accelerating universe“, he lists the three forms that many scientists feel this invisible or dark matter can have.

The first is that it could consist of ordinary non-luminous matter such as planets, brown dwarfs, or black holes.  The second possibility is that it could be composed of neutrinos.  A third candidate is some exotic elementary particle that is a relic of the early universe.

He then goes on to explain the problems with each of these scenarios.

The existence of enough non-luminous matter to make up the invisible matter in the universe is not supported by observations based on gravitational microlensing events.

Relativity tells us that light “bends” as it moves through a gravitational field.  Therefore, we should expect to see the effects of this “bending” or gravitational lensing of the light coming from stars that are behind any non-luminous matter.  However, to this date the observed number of these gravitational lensing events indicates the mass of non-luminous matter associated with them can only be a small percentage of the universe’s missing mass.

There are some who say that this may be because of none of the non-luminous matter in our universe happens to be situated between a star and us.  However, as Mario Livio points out in his book the sheer number of non-luminous objects that would be required to make up the missing mass of the universe is so large that this seems likely.

The second possibility or the existence of neutrinos has been confirmed though observations.  This makes them prime candidate for dark matter along with non-luminous object because observations indicate they do have mass.

However, on page 98 he explains that neutrinos are probably not the dominate component of dark matter because the existence of enough neutrinos is not supported by the observed structure of our universe.

Neutrinos because of their mass are characterized by high random speeds in the early universe.  However, observations of the early universe indicate the matter that condensed to form individual galaxies was not hot enough to support the high random speeds that would have been required to create the large number of neutrinos necessary to make up the observed quantity of dark matter that is known to exist.

The third and final possibility is that it may be made up of some exotic elementary particle such as WIMPs.  However, the existence of these particles is not based on observations but only on theoretical perditions and therefore there is no way to either confirm their existence or that they are responsible for the gravitational force associated with dark matter.

However, there is another form of energy/mass, which could be a component of dark matter that has not yet been considered. 

As we have shown throughout this blog there are many observations that support the existence of a continuous non-quantized or non-particle field of mass.

The most significant is the observation made by Louis de Broglie that all particles should have a wave component.  This conclusion was confirmed by Davisson and Germer in 1927 when it was discovered that electrons and other particles were diffracted by crystals.  This provides the most direct observational evidence of  its existence because it is the only thing that could support the internal continuous wave properties of particles.

Another one is the fact that one can explain and predict the quantum properties of mass in terms of its continuous field properties.

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4., 2007 it was shown that one can derive its quantum mechanical properties by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a continuous non-quantized field of mass.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate would be present in a continuous non-quantized field of mass.

The existence of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass would provide the “substance” of oscillating medium thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in it.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with the fundamental or a harmonic of it fundamental frequency.

However it also explains tell us the reason an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems.  In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terns of a resonate system.  Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a resonate system in either four dimensional space corresponds to an energy of an electron in the lowest orbital it must always be occupied.

Therefore observations that mass is quantized is supported by the existence of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass because one can derive their discrete properties of particles  in terms of the resonant system in it.

Additionally a continuous non-particle field of mass would have all the observable properties of Dark Matter, because, as was shown in the article “What is Dark Matter?“ Sept 10, 2007, being mass it would have a gravitational component which would define the casually of the gravitational forces associated with it.  However, it would be dark or not emit light because being continuous it would not be visible to modern scientific instruments which are only calibrated to detect light in a particle or photonic format. 

History has shown it is not necessary to directly observe or detect a substance or entity to “confirm” its existence.  For example, the existence of the atomic nucleus was indirectly “confirmed” by observing how alpha particles were deflected as they moved through gold foil.

Therefore, solving the mystery of what Dark Matter may require reanalyzing current and past observational data, unbiased by the preconceived assumption that all mass is in the form of particles and consider its existence of it in a continuous non-quantized form.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2008

The post What are the continuous field properties of dark matter? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Recently it has been shown the properties of Dark Matter and the anomalous accelerations of the NASA’s Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes cannot be explained or predicted by the presently accepted theoretical models.
Additionally, the observed properties of Dark Matter appear to conflict with the basic assumption of modern quantum theories, that all matter is composed of particles because all attempts to resolve them have failed.

Some say this is because we have not yet developed the technology to resolve its particle properties.

But the reason may be because it is not made up of particles but a continuous or non-particle field of energy/mass as suggested in the article “What is dark matter?” Sep 10, 2007.

However if its existence is in part responsible for the gravitational potential associated with Dark matter it may also be one of the casual factors for anomalous accelerations that “The American Institute of Physics” reported NASA has observed in it space probes.

The following article which appeared in the Physics News Update The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/ Number 391, September 15, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein of NASA reported observing an anomalous acceleration in several of its space probes that would be consistent with this paper the concept of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass. (These findings of Phillip F Schewe and Ben Stein were confirmed in Physics News update http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/ article 447)

ANOMALOUS ACCELERATION Data from several spacecraft, including Pioneer 10 and 11, Galileo, and Ulysses provide evidence for an unexplained, weak, long-range acceleration, a new report shows. Position and velocity information is derived from radio signals sent from the craft to the Deep Space Network back on Earth. Any change in velocity over time can be ascribed to a variety of known sources: the sun and planets, the solar wind, the Milky Way, the Kuiper belt, etc. But even after taking this all into account, as well as other possibilities such as the presence of dark energy/mass in the solar system (only a millionth of a solar energy/mass of dark energy/mass could reside within the orbit of Uranus, it is estimated) or gas leakage from the vehicles themselves, a small acceleration in the direction of the Sun—8 x 10-8 cm/sec^2 for Pioneer 10—remains unaccounted for. Signs of this anomaly first appeared in the Pioneer tracking as long ago as 1980 Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972 and is presently 70 astronomical units from Earth. Now six space scientists, armed with many years of Pioneer data, supplemented with trajectory information from Galileo and Ulysses, have carried out the first thorough analysis of the problem and find the anomaly to be as persistent as ever. (The Voyager spacecraft are less useful for determining acceleration anomalies.) The researchers doubt but do not rule out the possibility of a novel gravitational effect or other kind of new physics. Alternative explanations include subtle systematic errors in the data analysis or unexpected aspects of space navigation. Further work on this problem may extend to the observed motions of planets, comets, and the proposed Pluto Express craft. (John D. Anderson et al., Physical Review Letters, 5 October 1998 contact John Anderson at JPL, 818-354-3956, john.d.anderson@jpl.nasa.gov or Michael Nieto at Los Alamos, 505-667-6127, mmn@mmn.lanl.gov journalists can obtain copies of the article from AIP Public Information.)”

(The acceleration of NASA space probes is directed towards the sun so therefore it would be defined as deceleration with respect sun)

For example deceleration caused by a gravitational component of continuous non particle field would be analogous to the slowing or decelerating effects air has on the movement of aircraft.

Air provides resistance to the movement of an aircraft causing it to slow or decelerate.

Similarly, if space was made up of a continuous non-particle field it would provide “gravitational resistance” to a space probes movement causing them to decelerate.

However, if it is true that a portion of the energy loss associated the anomalous acceleration NASA has observed on its deep space probes is due to its existence it may be possible to analytically correlate it with the red shift in stars spectrum.

In the article “The cosmological redshift” it was shown why an extremely small percentage of the energy loss associated with the red shift observed in star’s spectra may not be due to its velocity relative to the earth but to the properties of a continuous field component of space.

A cosmological redshift occurs when the light received from distant objects is shifted in such way that the wavelength of the light we are seeing is longer than the wavelength of the light that was emitted by the object we are looking at. This is like hearing the siren of a fire truck shift to a lower pitch as it moves away from us and the difference in pitch is an indication of how fast it is moving away from us.  Similarly most astronomers assume the entire energy loss or frequency change associated with a red shift in a stars spectrum is due to its movement away from us.

However, as mentioned earlier if energy loss associated with the red shift observed is due to the gravitational components of a continuous non-particle field than one should be able to correlate it with the portion of the energy loss experience by Nasa’s deep space probes.

One could determine if of the energy loss associated with the red shift is due to its interaction with light by independently determining a stars velocity with respect to the earth and then comparing that value to the one obtained by its red shift.   If one then divides the difference between these two values by the star’s distance from the earth one could quantify the energy loss associated with it per unit distance traveled.

Using this value NASA could calculate how much energy loss would be caused by it because they know the distance they have traveled.  If it agrees with the energy loss associated with the anomalous acceleration they have observed their space probes it would have a tendency to verify the existence of a continuous non-quantized gravitational field

As was pointed out in the above Physics News Update article even after taking into account “other possibilities such as the presence of “Dark Matter” in the solar system the observed deceleration of these space probes cannot be accounted for.

However, a continuous field of energy/mass would not have been included in those calculations because as was mentioned earlier it would be undetectable by modern instrumentation because they are only calibrated to detect mass in its particle form.

Therefore, one must add the decelerating properties this article associates with a continuous non particle gravitational field to that NASA associates with the particular “Dark Matter” to obtain the total of the deceleration experienced by the space probes.

The reason NASA’s calculations regarding the decelerations on its space probes mentioned in the above article are “anomalous” is because they only used the decelerative properties they associated with the particular “Dark Matter” to calculate the accelerations and did not factor in the deceleration that would be caused by the existence of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass.

Therefore, if a space was composed of continuous non-particle field, the calculations involving the decelerations of NASA’s space probes will be incorrect or anomalous because it was not included in them.

It should be remember the decelerations caused by an interaction of a planet or other massive object moving through a non-particle or non-baryonic component of space would be infinitesimal compared to the decelerations caused by their interactions with its baryonic component.  This would make difficult to detect it by analyzing the orbital motion of planets. 

However, the cumulative decelerative effect would be detectable on NASA’s space probes because of the distance they have traveled and the precision by which they are able to determine their velocities.

This means the theoretical model proposed in this blog which incorporates the existence of a continuous non-particle field of energy/mass would have the ability to explain and predict the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass, the observations regarding Dark Matter and the anomalous decelerations of NASA space probes where as the presently accepted theories do not.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2007 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Dark Matter and the Pioneer anomalies appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

This would give one the ability to understand the why an electron does not fall into the nucleus of an atom by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in three-dimensional space as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

Therefore, these oscillations in a continuous non-quantized form of energy/mass, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Therefore these resonant systems would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.

This defines a common mechanism responsible for both the wave and particle properties of energy/mass because it derives one in terms of the other.

However it also tells us in terms of the physical properties four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions why an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy units of the universe.

Another puzzling aspect of quantum mechanics is how the wave properties of electromagnetic energy can be generated by the particle called a photon.

Yet this can be easily understood if one extrapolates the properties to a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water to a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of one in a space-time environment.

For example in the article “The Photon: a matter wave?” Oct. 1, 2007 it was shown that one can derive its electromagnetic properties in terms of resonant system generated by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth “spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards from the apex of that displacement.

This also solves the puzzle as to why the continuous wave properties of an electromagnetic field are always propagated in the particle called a photon because as mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed energy is propagated through space in quantized resonant system generated by the matter wave responsible for its electromagnetic properties. .

Therefore, one could argue that this defines a classical explanation for the wave properties of the electrical and magnetic components of a quantum mechanical system such as a photon because it is derived by extrapolating the laws of a classical three-dimension environment one of four.

Defining a particle in terms of a resonant system in four *spatial* dimensions can also explain another one of most puzzling aspects of quantum theory: how and why a particle can generate the interference pattern associated with a wave.

Thomas Young demonstrated the wave characteristics of a particle in an experiment using a light source in front of a screen containing two slits.  Each of the slits could be covered individually.  On the other side of screen was a wall against which the light coming through the slits could shine on.

When a very dim light was shined on the screen with one slit covered, it impacts the wall in a line between the source and hole in the screen.  However, when both holes are open the photons impacting the wall generate an interference pattern that is characteristic of a wave.  This interference pattern is generated even when a very dim light consisting of series of single photons are allowed to pass thought a screen with two slits.

When a device is used to determine or measure which silt the individual photons passed thought the interference disappeared. 

However, this is what one would expect if the particle properties of a photon were the result of a resonant system formed by a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold.  This is because it would occupy the volume of space associated with the wavelength of its resonant structure therefore; the energy of single photon could pass through both slits if their separation was small compared to its wavelength, forming an interference pattern on the screen whereas the act of measuring which slit it passes through would alter the frequency of the wave passing though it because that act requires a transfer of energy.  Therefore, no interference pattern will form because the properties of the wave passing through one will be different from the one passing through the other slit.

Additionally if one allows a series of single particle to pass through a relatively narrow slit one also observers that they form an interference pattern screen.

This appears to contradict the particle characteristics of mass/energy because a series of individual particle generate an interference pattern associated with a wave when passing thought a screen with a relatively narrow slit.

However, this is what one would expect if the particle were, as defined in “Why is mass and energy quantized?” are the result of resonant system made up of a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold because as Classical wave mechanics tells us there will be minimal interference if a wave passes through an opening that is relatively wide with respect to its wavelength and that it will increase as it is narrowed.

The reason why the interference pattern is observed to be made up of discreet or quantized units called photons is because, as mentioned earlier the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” showed that all energy must be propagated in quantized resonant systems.  Therefore one can only observe the interference pattern in terms of the quantized system called photons.

This defines a mechanism in terms of classical wave mechanics for the “wave-particle duality” or how a single quantum system can have both the properties of a wave and a particle because it defines its particle properties in terms of a resonant system formed by matter waves in four *spatial* dimensions

Finally defining particles in terms of a resonant system in four *spatial* dimensions can also explain why particles appear to randomly “move” or “jump” to different positions in space without ever moving though the intervening space.

For example an electron can “jump” from one atomic orbital to the next without going thought the intervening space because the resonant “system” associated with an electron does not move from one atomic orbital to the next.

Instead, the resonant system associated with an electron collapses in its initial atomic orbital and is then reformed in a new atomic orbital.  Because no resonant or “standing” matter wave is generated in the intervening space between the atomic orbital no electrons will be found there.

This shows how many of the puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics such the particle / wave duality can be solve extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define a quantum system in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories thereby giving us a new perspective on the probabilistic properties of a quantum environment and how they physically connected to our observable universe.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2007 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Quantum puzzles appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

(This image, taken with Spitzer’s infrared vision, shows a fraction of the black holes, which are located deep in the bellies of distant, massive galaxies (circled in blue).  Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique)

However, the only problem with assuming that all of these objects circled in blue are black holes is where are they now?

This question become harder to answer when one considers that according to all theoretical predictions, a black hole increases in size as it ages.  Therefore, these massive black holes that existed when the universes was young should still exist today and be even more massive than they were back when they were first formed.

The above article points out that the circled object are visible because “of a doughnut-shaped cloud of gas and dust that surrounds and feeds a budding super massive black hole.  As the gas and dust are devoured by the black hole, they heat up and shoot out X-rays.  Those X-rays can be detected as a general glow in space, but often the quasars themselves can’t be seen directly because dust and gas blocks them from our view.”

However black holes are, by definition opaque to all forms of radiation which means they should be silhouetted against any emitted from behind them.  Therefore, all black holes should be visible due to the shadows they cast in the background radiation in addition to “the gas and dust (they) are devouring”.
Additionally Einstein’s theories tell us that all mass creates gravitational forces, which bend or distorts light.  This should make them visible even without a doughnut-shaped cloud of gas and dust that surrounding them.  In fact, gravitational lensing is one of the methods that astrophysicists have used to detect black holes.  (The video to the right shows the circular arcs of light observed by the Hubble Space Telescope which are generated by gravitational lensing of galaxies .)

This means that all black holes, even the ones that are not surrounded by gas should be detectable.

One problem with assuming that all of the objects circled in blue are black holes is that we should be able to observe many more than we do in other regions of the sky which are not surrounded by gas and dust through such techniques as gravitational lensing.  The fact that we do not even with our advance observational technology such as that provided by the Hubble Space Telescope indicates that all the object circled in blue in the above picture many not be black holes.

We as scientists must be extremely careful not to let our personal beliefs interfere with our observational objectivity. 

The above article mentioned, “The massive, growing black holes, discovered by NASA’s Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes, represent a large fraction of a long-sought missing population.

Is it possible the conclusion that the all objects circled in blue in the above picture are Black Holes is, in part because their existence supported their previous conclusion that the vast majority of black holes have not yet been observed?

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2007

The post Black Holes, where are they now? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

What makes this discovery so remarkable is that there does not seem to be a way of integrating it into the currently accepted theoretical models.

For this reason, some would say the discovery Dark Energy may point to a “new physics”.
However, this would not be the first time a single observation has required science to discard a theory that had successfully explained and predicted all experimental observations up until it was made.

For example, Newton’s concept of absolute time and space was incompatible with the observation that the velocity of light was constant despite the motion of an observer.  However many scientists resisted discarding Newton’s concept because they pointed out that his theories could make extremely accurate predictions of all other observations made at that time.  However, Einstein realized that observation pointed to a new physics based on the relativist not the absolute properties of space and time.

Today the observation of Dark Energy generates a similar problem for his theories because observations tell us that three-dimensional space is expanding towards a higher spatial dimension not a time or space-time one.

Therefore, in order to explain the observed spatial expansion of the universe one would have to assume the existence of another *spatial* or fourth *spatial* dimension in addition to the three spatial and one time dimension that Einsteinâ€s theories contain to account for that the expansion.

This would be true if Einstein had not qualitatively and quantitatively defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light.  This is because it allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in his space-time universe to unit of space in a one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

Do so would not only allow one to define a physical mechanism responsible for Dark Energy but also give one the ability to ingrate the spatial expansion associated with it directly into his theoretical models.

For example,  as was shown in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This also allow one to understand how and why the force called Dark Energy is causing an accelerated spatial expansion of our universe in terms of the laws of thermodynamics because it gives one the ability, as mentioned earlier to use his equations to qualitatively and quantitatively define energy in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimensions.

We know from the study of thermodynamics that energy flows from areas of high density to one of low density very similar to how water flows form an elevated or “high density” point to a lower one.

For example, if the walls of an above ground pool filled with water collapse the elevated two-dimensional surface of the water will flow or expand and accelerate outward towards the three-dimensional environment surrounding it while the force associated with that expansion decreases as it expands.

Yet we know from observations of the cosmic background radiation that presently our three-dimensional universe has an average energy component equal to about 3.7 degrees Kelvin.

However this means according to concepts developed in the article “Defining energy” that the three-dimensional “surface” occupied by the particles in our universe which has an average energy component of 3.7 degree Kelvin would be elevated with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet this means similar to the water molecules occupying the elevated two dimensional surface of the water in the pool, the particles occupying a region of three-dimensional space that is elevated because of its 3.7 degree temperature will flow and accelerate outward in the four dimensional environment surrounding it.

In other words the reason space is expanding towards a higher spatial dimension is the same as what would cause the two dimensional surface of water in a pool will expand to the “higher” three-dimensional environment if its walls collapse

This shows how can be seamlessly integrate the force called Dark Energy into Einstein’s Theories of if one applies the laws of thermodynamics to an environment that consists of four spatial dimensions.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define the universe in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories thereby giving us a new perspective on the interactions between energy and space.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2007 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post What is Dark Energy? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

He then compared his result with the mass evaluated from the light the galaxies shed. He realized that there was a lot more matter in the cluster than what was visible or baryonic matter. This matter of an unknown type generated a gravitational field without emitting light. Hence its name, dark matter.

What makes this observation so puzzling is up until now no one has been able to define the origins of the energy/mass responsible for this gravitational tug even though some of the greatest minds of the scientific community have spent close to a century trying to.
This is because modern science assumes all mass exists in particle form while observations those galactic clusters indicate it only comprise approximately 5 to 10% of the mass required to account for the total gravitational force or “tug” in the universe.

However, the fact that 90 to 95% of the mass of the universe is invisible even with the recent advancements in particle detection technology suggests that it may be made up of a continuous or non-particle field of energy/mass

One may question the wisdom of hypothesizing that this only on the fact that we have been unable to detect the particles that could be responsible for it,

However, there are numerous other observations suggesting its existence.

For example Louis de Broglie was the first to predict its existence when he theorized that all particles have a wave component because there must be a continuous field of energy/mass available to support the wave properties of the smallest possible particle.

The fact all particles exhibit the diffraction pattern associated with a wave also suggest its existence because waves are by definition continuous therefore, there must exist a continuous field of energy/mass to support their diffraction pattern.

However the strongest argument that can be made for its existence is that one can explain and predict the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by assuming as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” that they are a result of a resonant system formed by the matter wave in a continuous non-quantized form of energy/mass.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in a matter wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four spatial dimensions.

As was shown in that article these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for its quantum mechanical properties.

Additionally it also tells us why in terms of the physical properties four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy units of the universe.

However, the physical properties astronomers have observed in “Dark Matter” would share the same physical properties as a continuous non-quantized energy/mass component of space because they are both composed of energy/mass and therefore would generate gravity, which would influence the orbits of stars in galaxies.  However because it is a continuous it would not be detectable by modern instrumentation because they are only calibrated to detect energy/mass in its particle form.

Therefore, the observations regarding quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass and the wave properties of particle predicted Louis de Broglie suggests the observed properties of “Dark Matter” may be the result of a continuous energy/mass component of space.

In the upcoming weeks and months this blog will present many more observations that support the existence of a continuous non-quantized field of mass that will make you question the assumption made by many physicists that all energy/mass is in particle form.

So please remember to stop by and visit for more insight into the true nature of “gravitation tug” associated with Dark Matter.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2007

The post What is Dark Matter? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.