Most if not all explanatory models of reality rely to some extent on ones imagination because they use unobservable quantities to support them.
For example Einstein used the concept of a space-time dimension to define gravity.  However no one has ever directly observed a space-time dimension.

Similarly quantum mechanics describes the interactions of particles in terms of the mathematical probabilities associated with a wavefunction which like a space-time dimension is also unobservable.

In other words both of these theories have imagination as a core component of their explanatory structure.

However there is distinct difference in how they apply it to the environment they are attempting to explain.

For example Einstein in his the “General Theory of Relativity” uses imagination and mathematics to expand a curvature in our observable three-dimension environment to define a four-dimensional space-time universe.

In other words even though its explanatory mechanism is based the existence of a space-time dimension that can only exist in our imagination he was able by using Riemannian geometry mathematically connect to our observable environment.

Similarly Quantum mechanics also uses imagination and mathematics to very accurately describe the particle interaction based on probabilities.

But unlike Relativity it uses a mathematical construct know as the wavefunction to describe the mechanism responsible for the future position of a particle which has no counterpart in our observable environment.

As Steven Weinberg mentioned in his book “Dreams of a Final Theory” the reason this difference in methodology is important is because mathematics in itself is never the explanation of anything because it is only the means by which we use one set of facts to explain another. This is true even though it may be the only the language in which we express them.  In other words mathematics should not be used to justify the mathematics of an explanatory model.

However as was just mentioned quantum mechanics uses the mathematics associated with a wavefunction to explain the mathematical mechanism it assumes is responsible for particle interaction.

Why then when mathematics in itself is never the explanation of anything do so many tell us that the mathematical properties of a wavefunction explain the quantum environment.

They do so because to this date it is the only way available to explain and predict how, among many other things chemical process occur and why the particles that were present in the Big Bang, evolved to create the universe we live in even though its entire theoretical structure is based purely on the imagination of those who developed it.

Some may question using the term imagination to describe the mathematical properties of the wavefunction.  However its definition of “being the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses” is applicable to them.

This is true even though science can use its abstract mathematical properties to accurately predict the evolution of particle system.

However as we have shown throughout the The Road to Unification there may be more to the wavefunction than just mathematics.  In other words by using the imagination one may be able to explain or expand the abstract mathematical properties of the wavefunction to the observable properties of our environment similar to how Einstein was able to expand a curvature in our observable three-dimension environment using Riemannian geometry to define a four-dimensional space-time universe.

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can understand how and why energy/mass is quantized in terms of the observable properties of resonant systems in our three dimensional environment.

Other articles like “Quantum entanglement: a classical explanation” July 15, 2015 clearly shows that the “spooky action at a distance, as Einstein called it can be explained in terms of the laws of classical causality. In other words it is merely an illusion resulting from a lack of understanding of a classic physicality of a quantum environment

Many of the 250 articles published in the The Road to Unification over the past nine years show that one can apply the classical laws of our observable environment to a quantum one to explain hoe the mathematical properties of the wavefunction physically describe how particles interact.

Imagination as was mentioned earlier is a critical component of all modern theoretical models of physics.  But we must not allow it to be only the only one because it can result in defining an environment that does not describe the reality we are attempting to define.

In other words similar to how Einstein was able to expand a curvature in our observable three-dimension environment to define a four-dimensional space-time universe one must, as we have tried to do make an effort to expand the physical properties of our observable environment to explain the world of quantum mechanics and the wavefunction that defines its environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

The universe’s most powerful enabling tool is not
knowledge or understanding but imagination
because it extends the reality of one’s environment.
However its scientific effectiveness is closely
related to how strongly it is
anchored in the reality it defines.

The post Should we allow imagination to define physics? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example he tells one reason he may have felt this way is because it defines the charge around a solitary electron as being caused by the spontaneous creation and evaporation of virtual electron-positron pairs which then instantaneously disappear.  In other words when a virtual electron-positron pair is created near the (real) electron, the (imaginary) virtual positron will be attracted toward the real electron, while the virtual electron is repelled. Therefore there should be a resulting separation of charge

I think most rational people would consider someone irrational if they tried to convince l us the reason why they were late for work was because a swam of virtual or imaginary cars were blocking the road and disappeared after we showed up.

Shouldn’t we hold our scientists to the same degree of rationality?

Most who have studied the history of science are aware that Einstein was vehemently opposed to many of the fundamental components of quantum mechanics such as the existence of virtual particle’s to explain an isolated charge. 

This was true even though he was able, in his General Theory of Relativity to derive the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of space and time while being unable to do the same for electromagnetism and charge, 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 Einstein’s years than any other activity”.

One reason why it was difficult of him to visualize electromagnetic fields including those around a single charge may have been because he chose to define the universe in terms of four dimensional space-time instead of four *spatial* dimensions because, as will be shown below it easier to visualize the properties of electrometric waves and charge in terms of their spatial rather time or space-time properties.

However he did provide a method of understanding them in terms of their common properties when he chose to define gravity in a space-time environment in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and constant velocity of light because that give him the ability to redefined it terms of the spatial properties of four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up 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 gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forces 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.

One of the advantages to using this technique is that it allows one to define the physicality of gravitational and electrical forces including those around a single electron in the same terms.

For example In the article “Gravity in four spatial dimensions” Dec. 15, 2007 it was shown one can derive gravitational forces in terms of curvature or physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in a four dimensional space-time environment.

However the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 showed one can also derive the forces associated with electromagnetism in terms of a similar displacement in the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly that article showed it is possible to derive the forces associated with an electromagnetic wave by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter 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 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 will be 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 the apex of that displacement.

However, as was mentioned earlier gravity can also be explain in terms of a differential force caused by a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This shows how one can define a common mechanism for the causality of both electromagnetism and gravity in terms of a “unified field” consisting of four *spatial* dimension by extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words one can visualize the fact that unlike charge attract each other while like ones repel in terms of the asymmetrical properties of space-time or four spatial dimensions.

Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of four-dimensional space-time because time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore making it difficult to visualize the bi-directional movement of the spatial component of a matter wave moving on its “surface” that is responsible for electromagnetism . 

However it also give a more rational explanation of the charge around a solitary electron than the spontaneous creation and evaporation of virtual electron-positron pairs because it shows that it can be understood in terms of a physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to fourth spatial dimension.

In other words it shows that electric forces are related to a physical displacement in a surface of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a either a higher spatial or time dimension thereby eliminating the need to evoke the existence of virtual electron-positron pairs to understand the behavior of a charge around a solitary electron.

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

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2016

The post Finally a logical explanation of the field around a solitary charge. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example one of the most obvious problems of assuming the universe will Rip apart is that it violates one of most treasured laws of physics that of the law of conservation of mass/energy.

That law tells us the kinetic energy of the universeâ€s expansion associated with the big bang and the accelerative forces of Dark Energy cannot exceed the total combined energy of its energy/mass.  However that is exactly what would have to happen for the Big Rip to occur. 

For example for a rocket to escape or be “Rip” from the earth’s gravitational influence one must provide it with more kinetic energy than the combined gravitational potential of both its and the earth’s energy/mass.

Similarly for the universe to be “Rip” apart one would have to provide its components with enough kinetic energy to overcome the total gravitational potential of its energy/mass.

However as was just mentioned the law of conservation energy/mass tells us that since by definition the universe is a closed system the kinetic energy of the universe’s components cannot exceed the gravitational potential of its energy/mass.

Therefore if we are to assume that the universe will be Rip apart by Dark Energy we must also assume that energy/mass can be created and that the law of conservation of energy/mass is invalid.

However as also mentioned early the best way of to understand why the Big Rip” cannot occur is to show, using the currently accepted theoretical models and laws of physics to understand why Dark energy is causing the accelerated expansion of our universe and why, based on those laws and theoretical models it theoretical models why it cannot possibly cause it to be rip apart.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, the previewing theory governing the evolution of the universe tells us that its future depends the interaction of the contractive force of gravity, the expansive force associated with the kinetic energy left over from the Big bang and Dark Energy.

Unfortunately in its present form it cannot address the causality of the expansive force of Dark Energy and how or why it would interact with its environment to cause it to accelerate because observations tell us that three-dimensional space is expanding towards a higher spatial dimension not a time or space-time dimension.  

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

This would be true if Einstein had not given us a means of qualitatively and quantitatively converting the geometric properties of his space-time universe to one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.

He did this when he defined its geometric properties in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because it allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in his space-time universe to an equivalent unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and 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 the equation E=mc^2 allows us to quantitatively and qualitatively derive the physical properties of energy in a space-time universe in terms of its spatial properties is the bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that 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.

As mentioned earlier it is difficult to integrate the causality of why three-dimensional space expanding towards a “higher” spatial dimension into Einstein space-time universe because it does not define a higher spatial dimension. 

However it is easy if one reformulates it, as was shown above to be possible in terms higher fourth *spatial* dimension because a higher dimension is an integral part of its theoretical structure.

Yet this also allows 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 Einstein’s 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 by reformulating Einstein’s theories in terms of four *spatial* dimensions one can use the laws of thermodynamics to explain what the force called Dark Energy is and why it is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe in terms of Einstein’s theories.

Many feel that because space is everywhere, the force called Dark Energy is everywhere so therefore its effects will increase as space expands.  In contrast, gravity’s force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart.  Therefore they feel the rate at which the universe expands will increase as time go by resulting in galaxies, stars, the solar system, planets, and even molecules and atoms would be shredded by the ever-faster expansion.  In other words the universe that was born in a violent expansion could end with an even more violent expansion called the Big Rip.

However if the above theoretical model is correct than the magnitude of Dark Energy relative to gravitational energy will not continue to increase as the universe expands but will decrease because, similar to the water in a collapsed pool the accelerative forces associated with its will decline as it expands. 

Yet, because the laws of conservation the total quantity of the universeâ€s energy/mass remains constant throughout its history its gravitational potential will also.  Therefore in the future the gravitational contractive forces associated with it will exceed the expansive forces associated with Dark Energy because, as mentioned earlier according to this theoretical model its accelerative forces should decrease as the universe expands.

This would be true even though its components may be separated by extremely large distances because, as just mentioned if the above theoretical scenario is correct the force associated with dark energy will decease relative to gravity as time goes by.

However observations also suggest that early in the universe evolution the gravitational forces exceeded the expansive forces of Dark Energy.

The reason is that according the above theoretical model, just after the big bang when the concentration of energy and mass was high, the gravitational forces with it would predominate over Dark Energy because the distance between both its energy and mass components was relatively small.

However as the universe expands its gravitational attractive forces will decrease more rapidly than the expansive force associated with Dark Energy because they are related to the square of the distance between them while those of the expansive forces of Dark Energy are more closely related to a linear function of the total energy of content of the universe. 

Therefore after a given period of time the expansive forces associated with Dark Energy will become predominate and the expansion of the universe will accelerate.

However as the universe expands and cools that force will decrease because as mentioned earlier similar to the two-dimensional surface of the water in a collapsed pool, the forces associated with it will decrease as it expands.

This means that eventually gravitational forces will predominant  because, as mentioned earlier the laws of thermodynamics tells us the total accelerative forces associated with Dark Energy will decease and therefore will eventually approach zero, while the total mass content and the gravitational attractive forces associated with it will remain constant as the universe expands even though they may be separated by a greater distant.

Therefore. gravity will eventually win the battle with Dark Energy because as was just mentioned the forces associated with it approach zero as the expansion progress while those of gravity remain constant.

There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories and the laws of thermodynamics because the theoretical arguments presented are a base solely on their validity.

In other words if someone spends the time, as we done above analyzing what observations have taught us about Dark Energy and integrating them into Einstein’s Theories one would one find that the assumption that it would “Rip” the universe apart does not have foundation in logic or science.

It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to view Dark Energy in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2015 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post Why the “Big Rip” cannot happen appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example many proponents of the Big Bang theory assume the universe expanded from a singularity which is by definition a region of space in which mass is concentrated in a volume whose gravitational field is so great that neither energy or mass can escape from it.

However how can something emerge or expand form something that it cannot emerge from.

Many would call someone irrational or maybe even mental deficient he or she tells us the rabbit a magician pulls out of his hat materialized out of thin air when we know or should know that it could not.

Similarly shouldn’t we hold scientists to that same rationality or mental standard when they tell us that the gravitational field of a singularity is so great that nothing can escape from it and then tell us that all of the matter and energy in the universe materialized out of it?

However an even more pertinent question is why do some of the most highly educated people in the scientific community believe and expect others to believe in the irrationality of a universe which began in a singularity.

The answer may be because they rely to much on the quantitative and not enough on the qualitative properties of their theoretical models to explain or justify their mathematics to themselves and others. 

For example there are an infinite number of ways one can mathematically describe how four apples in a bag can find themselves on a table.  One could mathematical quantify it by saying that the two of the four apples were taken out of the bag and later two more were removed and placed on the table.  This gives you both the correct quantitative and qualitative or physical description of how those apples came to be on the table.  However an equally valid mathematical quantification would be to assume that five apples were taken out of the bag and then one was put back.  However if there only four apples to begin with the mathematical description using five apples even though it make an accurate mathematical prediction of why there are four apples on the table does not describe their environment because it never contained five apples.

A theoretical model of our universe consists of two parts.  The first part allows one to accurate predict the quantitative outcome of experiments while the second is to provide a logically consistent explanation based on its qualitative or physical properties.

As mentioned earlier many proponents of the Big Bang Theory assume the universe began when the mass and energy contained in a singularity began to expand and defines the environment in which that expansion take place in terms of the concept presented in the General theory of Relativity.

However if one took the time to analyze the physicality of environment that it defines one would realize that not only does it not predict the existence of a singularity it tells us that they cannot exist.

Granted some cleaver scientists have come up with a mathematical model of what could be responsible for the universe originating from one such as an inflation field but it has no basis in either observations or theory.

As mentioned earlier the existence of a singularity is based primarily on the quantitative mathematical properties of Einstein General Theory of Relativity.  However just because one gets a mathematically correct answer to a question does not mean as was shown above that it defines the reality of the environment that it encompasses.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity predicted time is dilated or moves slower when exposed to gravitational field than when it is not.  Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory a gravitational field, if strong enough it would stop time.

In 1915, Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to it the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would stop the movement of time if it collapsed to a singularity.  He also defined the critical circumference or boundary in space around a singularity where the strength of a gravitational field will result in time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase.  At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time.  Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

This critical circumference is called the event horizon because an event that occurs on the inside of it cannot have any effect on the environment outside of it.

Many physicists believe the existence of a singularity is an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

However, it can be shown using the concepts developed by Einstein; this is not true.

In Kip S. Thorne book “Black Holes and Time Warps“, he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity.  On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, from the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter.  They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect.  “Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly.  However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface.  The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.  In other words from the perspective of an external observer Einstein theory tells us that a star cannot contract beyond it event horizon.

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field.  Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface.  The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither “pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began”.

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side.  Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center.  The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference.  Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing.  Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference.  The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting.  But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference. 

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces.  Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe and must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild because as was show above time must stop for all observers at the event horizon.

This is true even though some have shown mathematically that mass can continue to collapse beyond the event horizon if it is not symmetrically distributed around its center

In other words because parts of it that are moving faster towards the center they could break through the event horizon and drag the rest of it in.

However as was shown above the increasing strength of the gravitational field causes time to slow and stop at the event horizon from the perspective of all observers.

Therefore no matter how asymmetrical the collapse of a mass is none of it can ever pass through the event horizon to form singularity according to the conceptual arguments presented in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations based on the General Theory of Relativity that physicists used to predict the existence of a singularity because as has just been shown the theoretical predications made by them regarding its existence are contradictory to the concepts contained in it.

It should be remember we are not saying that black holes do not exist however we are saying that according to the concepts of Relativity a singularity is NOT an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.  In other words the mass of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass cannot collapse to a singularity but only to a finite volume equal to its event horizon.

As was mentioned earlier a valid theoretical model must seamlessly integrate both a quantitative and qualitative explanation of environment it encompasses because not doing so leaves it opened to criticism.

In other words we must hold scientist’s accountable for both the mathematical as well as the qualitative properties of their theoretical models to minimize the possibility of them pulling a theoretical “rabbit” out of their hats.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post Holding scientist’s accountable appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

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

Additionally he showed us one can understand why 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 the surface of the diaphragm. 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 the reality of a marble moving on a curved surface.

However he was unable to do the same for electrical forces even though he felt, as documented by the American Institute of Physics  “that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure”.  

“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.

One reason may be because electrical force appears to be more closely related to the spatial not the time properties of our universe because they can be both attractive and repulsive whereas gravity is unidirectional attractive force. 

In other words because time is only observed to move in one direction forward, it is difficult to incorporate the bidirectional component of electrical forces in terms of a physical image based on the geometry of space-time.  However it is much easer if one defines them in terms of the geometry four *spatial* dimensions because one can more two directions, backwards of forwards in a spatial dimension. 

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 space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a one 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 thereby giving one the ability to define the bidirectional components of electrical forces in terms of the multi directional properties of the spatial dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravity 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 would have allowed him 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 matter 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 matter 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 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 will be 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 the apex of that displacement.

This shows how one can define a physician image for the causality electrical forces in terms by extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to consisting of four dimensional space time or four *spatial* dimensions.

However viewing electromagnetism in terms of its spatial instead of its time properties allows one to understand its quantum mechanic properties in of a physical image based on the observable properties of waves in three dimensional space.

However it also allows one to integrate the quantum mechanical properties of  electromagnetism into the continuous field properties General Relativity

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can physical derive the quantized wave properties of electromagnetism  by extrapolating the field properties of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment 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 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 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 to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

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

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical properties of a photon or electromagnetic field.

Yet one can also define its boundary conditions in terms of the classical laws space and time.

For example in classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of the field properties of mass with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“

In other words one can form a physical image of why electromagnetic energy is quantized in terms of the same wave properties that was earlier was associated with its attractive and repulsive properties.

As mentioned earlier Einstein felt “that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure”. 

The above discussion vindicates that belief because it shows that one can not only incorporate gravity and the continuous wave properties of electromagnetism but also its  quantum properties into a broader mathematical structure by rewriting the space-time field concepts of General Theory of Relativity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions

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 terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post Incorporating electromagnetism in General Relativity appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac addressed this issue in a lecture he delivered on February 6, 1939 regarding “The Relation between Mathematics and Physics“.

“The physicist, in his study of natural phenomena, has two methods of making progress: (1) the method of experiment and observation, and (2) the method of mathematical reasoning. The former is just the collection of selected data; the latter enables one to infer results about experiments that have not been performed (or cannot be performed). There is no logical reason why the second method should be possible at all, but one has found in practice that it does work and meets with reasonable success. This must be ascribed to some mathematical quality in Nature, a quality which the casual observer of Nature would not suspect, but which nevertheless plays an important role in Nature’s scheme.

One might describe the mathematical quality in Nature by saying that the universe is so constituted that mathematics is a useful tool in its description. However, recent advances in physical science show that this statement of the case is too trivial. The connection between mathematics and the description of the universe goes far deeper than this, and one can get an appreciation of it only from a thorough examination of the various facts that make it up.”

But exactly how deep is the connection between the mathematical reasoning we use to predict nature to its reality.  In other words how can be sure the equations we use to “infer the results of experiments that have not been performed” (or cannot be performed) actually defines the reality of the environment that encompasses them
Unfortunately we cannot because, as was just mentioned we have not or may not ever be able to conduct them.

Therefore we must be very sure that the equations we use to predict a “quality of Nature” that is unobservable have a “factual” foundation in the theoretical models they are derived from because it is only way in which we can be connect them to true “Nature” of reality defined by that theoretical model.

This is especially true when we use the mathematics of an established paradigm such as the General Theory of Relativity to predict the existence of objects or things such as a singularity which, by definition can never be observed.

For example ESA, at its HubbleSite tells us using Newtonâ€s Laws in the late 1790s, John Michell of England and Pierre-Simon Laplace of France independently suggested the existence of an “invisible star.” Michell and Laplace calculated the mass and size – which is now called the “event horizon” – that an object needs in order to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. While n 1915, Einstein’s gave us a conceptual basis for their existence when he publish his General Theory Relativity was able to gives for their predicted the existence of black holes.

Later Karl Schwarzschild, when quantified their existence using mathematics based on Einstein General Theory of Relativity discovered that the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would collapse form a “invisible star” of black hole, as it is now called. Additionally he showed those same equation indicated that the mass would continue to collapse even after its formation to a singularity or one dimensional point. 

He was also able to mathematically quantify the critical circumference or boundary in space around it where the strength of a gravitational field will become strong enough to prevent light from escaping and time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words, as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase.  At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time.  Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

However unlike a black hole which have been observationally confirmed through the gravitational effects they have on companion stars the singularity which Schwarzschild’s mathematics predicted is at its center has not been observed and never will be because, as mentioned earlier light cannot escape from a black hole.

Yet there are some who say that the mathematics used to predict the existence of a black hole also predicts, with equal certainty the existence of singularities.  In other words by verifying the existence of black holes though observation means that we have also verified the existence of singularities.

However that assumption is correct if and only if the formation of a singularity is consistent with the concepts of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity because as mentioned earlier that is conceptual basis for the mathematics predicating their existence.

However, it can be shown there is an inconsistency between the mathematics Schwarzschild used to predict the existence of a singularity and the concepts developed by Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity. 

To understand why we must look at how it describes both the collapse of a star to a black hole and then what happens to its mass after its formation.

In Kip S. Thorne book “Black Holes and Time Warps“, he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity.  On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter.  They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect.  “Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly.  However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface.  The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.”

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field.  Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an observer who is external to its gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface.  The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither “pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began”.

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side.  Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center.  The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference.  Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing.  Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference.  The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting.  But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference. 

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces.  Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.    `

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe and must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild.

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations based on the General Theory of Relativity that are used to predict the existence of a singularity because as has just been shown the theoretical predications made by them regarding its existence are contradictory to the concepts contained in the theoretical model they are base on.

We agree with Dirac that the connection between mathematics and nature goes far deeper than just being a useful tool in its description.

However as was shown above one must make sure that facts upon which the mathematics is based reliably follow the theoretical model they were development from if we want to use them to understand the “quality of Nature” defined by that model.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post The reliability of our mathematical universes appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example the fine structure constant is one of the about 22 empirical parameters in the Standard Model of particle physics, whose value is not determined within it.

In other words their values are not determined by theory but by experimentation. 

An even more puzzling question is why a certain number of them lie within a very narrow range, so that if any were only slightly different, the Universe would be unable to develop matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as we presently understand it.

However there are several theoretical models that attempt to explain why we live in a universe that is so fine tuned for life.
For example the Multiverse class of theories assumes the value of the fundamental constants vary randomly though out many different universes and that we happen to live in one that have the values that will support life.

In other words they all assume the existence of many universes, each with randomly chosen physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life and because we are intelligent beings, we are by definition in a hospitable one.

However all of them suffer from the same problem in that are not verifiable or falsifiable because by definition universes are closed systems and cannot interact with each other.  Therefore because they cannot interact with ours there is no way to verify or falsify their existence.

This is why Critics of the Multiverse-related explanations argue that they are unscientific because there is no way to experimentally verify or falsify their existence.

Yet the reason why we live in a universe in which the values of fundamental constants are fine tuned to allow life to developed may not be due to a random property of their origins but may be because they are preordained to have those values by a dynamic resonant property of energy/mass defined by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and his equation E=mc^2. 

In other words the fundamental constants are what they are because they correspond to the most stable configuration of energy/mass possible.

For example a guitar string has a frequency at which it will naturally resonant at due, in part to the tension it is experiencing, and will, if allowed to, drift towards and stabilize at that optimal value.

Similarly the values of the fundamental constants associated with the resonant structure of energy/mass defined by Einstein would have a tendency to drift towards and stabilize at their optimal value.

However if it is true that the value of all of the fundamental constants are due to resonant property of energy/mass defined by Einstein then one should be able to determine there values in terms of those resonant structures.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he not only defining the resonant properties energy/mass in his General Theory of Relativity but also the those of the entire universe because they  tells us that its present expansion must come to an end!!

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity tells us there is a dynamic balance between the universe’s gravitational potential energy and the kinetic energy associated with its expansion.  However, not all of the energy associated with that expansion is directed towards it because of the random motion of its energy/mass components.  For example, observations indicate that some stars and galaxies are moving towards not away from us.  Therefore, not all of the kinetic energy present at the time of its origin is directed towards its expansion.

Additionally the equation E=mc^2 which defines the equivalence between mass and energy tells us the kinetic energy of the universe’s expansion also posses gravitational potential.

However the law of conservation of energy/mass tells that energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed in a closed environment.  This also tells us since, by definition the universe is closed system the kinetic energy of the universeâ€s energy/mass cannot exceed its gravitational contractive properties of its mass because Einstein tells us that its kinetic energy is made up of that mass. 

Therefore because some of the kinetic energy of some of its components is not directed towards its expansion the total gravitational contractive properties of its energy/mass must exceed the kinetic energy of its expansive components. Which means at some point in time the gravitation contractive potential of its energy/mass must exceed the kinetic energy of its expansion because as just mentioned not all of its kinetic energy is directed towards its expansion.  Therefore at that point, in time the universe will have to enter a contractive phase.

Some may disagree by saying that as the universe expands its energy is spread out over a larger volume so after a while it just vanishes so to speak or as some like to say that the universe experiences a heat death.  However Einstein theories do not permit energy to just disappear or “die”.  It unequivocally tells us that if the kinetic energy content in a closed environment decreases as it cools the mass content of that environment must increase irrespective of the volume of that environment.  Therefore because by definition the universe is a closed system one must assume that any reduction in its overall energy content of the universe including its heat energy must be must be compensated for by an increase in its total attractive gravitational mass content.

Some others would disagree because recent observations suggest that a force called Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe accelerate.  Therefore they believe that its expansion will continue forever.  However, as was shown in the article “Dark Energy and the evolution of the universe” if one assumes the law of conservation of mass/energy is valid, as we have done here than the gravitational contractive properties of its mass equivalent will eventually exceed its expansive energy associated with dark energy and therefore the universe must at some time in the future enter a contractive phase.

We know from observations that heat is generated when we compress a gas and that the heat creates pressure that opposes further contractions.

Similarly the contraction of the universe will create heat which will oppose its further contractions.

Therefore the velocity of contraction will increase until the momentum of the galaxies, planets, components of the universe equals the radiation pressure generated by the heat of its contraction.

At this point in time the total kinetic energy of the collapsing universe would be equal and oppositely directed with respect to the radiation pressure associated with the heat of its collapse. From this point on the velocity of the contraction will slow due to the radiation pressure and be maintained by the momentum associated with the remaining mass component of the universe.

However, after a certain point in time the heat and radiation pressure generated by its contraction will become great enough to ionize the remaining mass and cause it to reexpand because the expansive forces associated with the radiation pressure will exceed the contractive forces associated with its mass.

This will result in the universe entering an expansive phase and going through another age of recombination when the comic background radiation was emitted. The reason it will experience an age of recombination as it passes through each cycle is because the heat of its collapse would be great enough to completely ionize all forms of matter.

However, at some point in time the contraction phase will begin again because as mentioned earlier its kinetic energy cannot exceed the gravitational energy associated with the total mass/energy in the universe.

Since the universe is a closed system, the amplitude of the expansions and contractions will drift and stabilize at a specific value corresponding to its resonant frequency similar to how a guitar string drift and stabilize at its resonant frequency

This results in the universe experiencing in a never-ending cycle of expansions and contractions whose frequency would be defined by its resonant properties.

Many cosmologists do not accept this cyclical scenario of expansion and contractions because they believe a collapsing universe would end in the formation of a singularity similar to the ones found in a black hole and therefore, it could not re-expand.

However, according to the first law of thermodynamic the universe would have to begin expanding before it reached a singularity because that law states that energy in an isolated system can neither be created nor destroyed

Therefore because the universe is by definition an isolated system; the energy generated by its gravitational collapse cannot be radiated to another volume but must remain within it. This means the radiation pressure exerted by its collapse must eventually exceed momentum of its contraction and the universe would have to enter an expansion phase because its momentum will carry it beyond the equilibrium point were the radiation pressure is greater that the momentum of its mass.

This would be analogous to the how momentum of a mass on a spring causes it to stretch beyond its equilibrium point resulting it osculating around it.

There can be no other interpretation if one assumes the validity of the first law of thermodynamics which states that the total energy is a closed system is defined its mass and the momentum of its components. Therefore, when one decreases the other must increase and therefore it must oscillate around a point in space and time.

The reason a singularity can form in black hole is because it is not an isolate system therefore the thermal radiation associated with its collapse can be radiated into the surrounding space. Therefore, its collapse can continue because momentum of its mass can exceed the radiation pressure cause by its collapse in the volume surrounding a black hole.

If this theoretical model is valid the heat generated by the collapse of the universe must raise the temperature to a point where it energy/mass would become ionized into their component parts thereby making the universe opaque to radiation.  It would remain that way until it entered the expansion phase and cooled enough to allow them become deionized.  This Age of Recombination, as cosmologists like to call it is the causality of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

As mentioned earlier the frequency of the expansions and contractions of all resonant systems is defined by their resonant properties.

Similarly the gravitational potential and kinetic energy of its expansion will also have a natural frequency which would be determine by resonant properties.  Like all resonant structures any frequencies that do not correspond to that value will be attenuated.

Therefore the value of the fundamental constants would define the rate or frequencies at which the universe is expanding or contracting would be determined by the resonant properties of energy/mass define by Einstein.

In other words the value of those constant may not be randomly chosen but would be defined by the physical relationship between mass and kinetic energy defined by Einstein.

This means one could experimentally quantify and this scenario by using Einstein equations to determine the value of the cosmology constant based on that relationship and see if it agrees with its observed value.

In other words it is not necessary to assume the existence of multiple universes to understand why fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range that allows life to develop because their values may not be random chosen but are preordained to have them by a physical property of energy and mass defines by Einstein.

As mentioned earlier many Critics of the Multiverse-related explanations argue that there is no evidence or any way of verifying or falsifying the existence of other universes.

However we can observe and verify the existence of the resonant properties of energy and mass and if want we have said above is true that values all of the fundamental constants in physics are related to those resonant properties them it would be falsified if it was found that the value of even one of them could not be derived using that concept.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post Deriving the fundamental constants of nature appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Many physicists assume the General Theory of Relativity predicts that all the mass in a black hole is concentrated at its center in a singularity or a point which has zero volume and infinite density

However the idea it can be concentrated in a non-dimensional point of infinite density with zero volume is a bit hard to grasp even for Einstein whose theory is used to predict their existence.

What makes it even more bizarre is that scientists tell us the laws of physics which they use to predict its existence break down at a singularity.

Why then do many believe that they exist?

The reason is because many believe the mathematics of the General Theory of Relativity tells us that when star starts to collapse after burning up its nuclear fuel and forms a black hole the gravitational forces of its mass become large enough to cause matter to collapse to zero volume.

However even though there is observational evidence for the existence of black holes there never will be any for the singularity because according to the General Theory of Relativity nothing, including light can escape form one.

For example NASA’s Hubblesite tells us that "Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, the galaxy NGC 4258, the giant elliptical galaxy M87, and several others. Scientists verified its existence by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system."

However as mentioned earlier we will never be able to observe a singularity because they only exist inside black hole.  Therefore to determine their reality we must rely solely on the mathematical predictions of the General Theory of Relativity regarding their formation.

There are some who say that the mathematics used to predict the existence of a black hole also predicts, with equal certainty the existence of singularities.  In other words by verifying the existence of black holes though mathematics means that they have also verified the existence of singularities.

However this would only be true if the mathematics used to predict both a black hole and a singularity conform to the conceptual arguments associated with Einstein General Theory of Relativity because the mathematics used to confirm its existence is based solely on them and not on observations as is the case of black holes.

In other words the fact that we can observe a black hole tells us the mathematics used to predict its existence has a valid basis in ideas of General Relativity.

However the same cannot be said about the existence of a singularity because the conceptual arguments found in that theory tells us that we cannot extrapolate the mathematics associated with it to the formation of a black hole.

To understand why we must look at how it describes both the collapse of a star to a black hole and then what happens to its mass after its formation.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity predicted time is dilated or moves slower when exposed to gravitational field than when it is not.  Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory a gravitational field, if strong enough it would stop time.

In 1915 Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to it the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would stop the movement of time if it collapsed to a singularity.  He also defined the critical circumference or boundary in space around a singularity where the strength of a gravitational field will result in time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase.  At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time.  Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

This critical circumference is called the event horizon because an event that occurs on the inside of it cannot have any effect on the environment outside of it.

Many physicists as mentioned earlier believe the existence of a singularity is an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

However, it can be shown using the concepts developed by Einstein; this may not true.

In Kip S. Thorne book "Black Holes and Time Warps", he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity.  On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter.  They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect.  "Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly.  However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface.  The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field.  Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface.  The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side.  Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center.  The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference.  Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing.  Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference.  The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting.  But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference. 

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces.  Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe but must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild.

Some claim that the irregularities in the velocity of contractions in the mass forming the black hole would allow it continue to collapse beyond its event horizon.  However Einstein’s theories tells us that time would move slower for the faster moving mass components of a forming black hole than the slower ones thereby allowing the them to catch up with their faster moving brothers.

In fact the conceptual arguments presented in Einstein’s theories tell us the entire mass of a forming black hole must reach the event horizon at exactly the same time because of time dilatation predicted by his theories.

Therefore assuming the irregularities in the velocity of contractions in the mass forming the black hole would allow it continue to collapse beyond its event horizon is not justified by the conceptual foundations in the General Theory Relativity

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations that many physicists used to predict the existence of singularities because as has just been shown the mathematical predications made by it regarding their existence is contradictory to its conceptual framework.

In other words just because we have observationally verified the existence black holes which were based on equations created from Einstein’s theory does not mean that a singularity at its center is an inevitable outcome of those equations. 

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The demise of the singularity 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 way 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.
Further observations suggest the baryonic or visible forms of matter in the universe only comprise approximately 5 to 10% of the mass required to account for the total gravitational energy in the universe.

However, the fact that 90 to 95% of the mass of the universe is invisible or “Dark” even with the recent advancements in particle detection technology suggests that it may be made up some else.

Einstein’s may have given us a clue as to what this could be when he defined gravitational forces and the quantity of mass in a give volume of space-time in terms of its field properties and not in terms of the particle or physical properties of mass.

This means the additional gravitational forces over and above that associated with the visible matter Fritz Zwicky measured in 1933 may be related to geometric property of space-time and not to the particle properties of baryonic or visible mass.

One can understand why by use the example Einstein gave us of a rubber sheet to visualize how a curvature in a space-time results in a gravitational field.

For example if one places a heavy ball in the middle of a flexible rubber sheet and then pushes a smaller ball the general direction of the heavy ball, will follow a curved path, as if “attracted” by the mass.  In other words the small ball is attracted to the focal point of the depression caused in the surface of the sheet by the heaver one.

However this does not accurately describe the gravitational fields associated with spiral galaxies because their rotational energy causes then to occupy a spatially extended region around its center.

Again one can understand the effects of the flattening of space caused by their rotational energy has on their total gravitational potential by using the example of a marble on a rubber diaphragm. 

For example if one places a  heavy ball in the middle or a rubber sheet and then pushes several smaller balls in the general direction of the heavy ball, will follow a curved path, as if “attracted” by the mass.  However the curvature in the sheet associated with each individual marble will be greater than what it would if it was just resting on the rubber sheet because the kinetic energy of their rotation will flatten and therefore increase the overall the curvature in its surface.

The rotation energy of the individual stars in galaxies would have the same effect the curvature in space-time.

However Einstein told us that the magnitude of a curvature in space defines the magnitude of the gravitational forces and therefore the total mass of in a volume of space.

Therefore to be valid representation of the gravitational forces in a galaxy one would have to analyze what the flattening of the bottom of a displacement in space-time does to the magnitude of the slope of the curvature in its surface.

Einstein told us what the effects of this would be when he defined the equivalence between energy and mass in terms of the equation E=Mc^2 because that tells us that the kinetic energy of the stars motion also posses gravitational potential.

If one flattens the distribution of the marbles around their original focal point while keeping their overall depth the same as it was before that flattening it would make the curvature steeper than it would be if no flattening had occurred.

Similarly because of the *flattening* of space by the rotation energy of the individual stars in galaxies the magnitude of the slope of the displacement in space-time associated with gravitational forces would be greater than it would be if one only viewed the sum of that associated with the individual stars as if they were not in relative motion with respect to each other. In other words the gravitational potential Einstein with the Kinetic energy of individual stars in galaxies would increase the magnitude of the curvature in space time over and above that caused by their visible mass.

However, as mentioned earlier Einstein define gravitational force and the quantity of mass in a given volume of space in terms of the magnitude of a curvature in space.

Therefore, one would measure the total gravitational potential and mass of a galaxy or galactic cluster to greater than that associated with the individual stars or visible baryonic matter they contain.

Additionally because the gravitation potential due to spatial flattening of space-time would be cumulative and linear with respect to the distance from the galaxy’s center the gravitational forces experienced by each star orbiting it would increase as its distance from the center does.  This also means that there should be linear relationship between a stars distance from the center of a galaxy and its orbital velocity.

In other words Einstein predicted the existence of Dark Matter when he defined gravitational potential in terms of a geometric property of space-time.

However this means that some of the gravitation potential associated with Dark Matter in galaxies galactic clusters and supper clusters and the recently observed dark matter web may not be due to baryonic matter but to the distortion or flattening of in space-time caused by their rotational energy.

One could observational verify the above hypothesis by determining the ratio of Dark matter to the orbital dynamics of galaxies.  If it is found that spiral galaxy have a larger ratio of dark matter to visible matter than globular clusters it would suggest that flattening of space does contribute the total gravitational potential in of a given volume of space.  This is because the rotational velocity of stars in spiral galaxies would have a slightly greater flattening effect on space than globular ones.

Another way of observational verifying this hypothesis would be to determine where the gravitational nodes would be located in the space between galactic clusters and determine if they match the patterns associated with the dark matter web.  If it does it would go a long way in confirming it.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post The Geometry of Dark Matter appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example Kepler’s Laws are wonderful as a description of the motions of the planets.  However, they provide no explanation of why the planets move in that way.  Moreover, Kepler’s Third Law only works for planets orbiting the Sun and does not apply to moon’s orbiting around the planets.

However 1686, Isaac Newton presented his three laws of motion in the “Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis” which provided a more general explanation Kepler’s laws and allowed them to be applied not only to of the motions of the planets but also to those of their moons.

This is primarily because Kepler developed his laws directly from the quantitative observational records given to him by Tycho Brahe and did not attempt to generalize them.  Additionally he was unable or did not try to understand why those numbers appeared in nature but only to find a way of making the fit them into the consistent mathematical structure we now call Kepler’s laws.
However Newton was able to reformulate them by defining a gravitational mechanism that not only provide a theoretical understanding of their validity but also expanded, as mentioned earlier their domain to a much broader environment.

There are many aspects of modern physics that might gain the same benefits from the reformulation of existing ideas.

One in particular would be Einstein theories because it may allow one to derive a theoretical understanding of the casualty of Dark Energy and what Dark matter is.

Dark Energy or the mysterious force that is causing the accelerated, spatial expansion of the universe does not appear to be integrable into any of the currently accepted theoretical models of our universe.

This is true even though Einstein foresaw its existence when he used his intuition to arbitrarily insert a term, called a cosmology constant into his General Theory of Relativity that would create an expanding force very similar to that of Dark Energy.  Similar to Kepler he based this addition only on the observational records of his time that suggested space was static and unchanging and not on any theoretical principal.  Additionally like Kepler he either could not or did not try to integrate it or explain why it exists in terms of a theoretical model.

However there are some who feel that we may be able to use his intuitive genius and the concept laid down in his space-time theories to understand the causality of spatial expansion associated with Dark Energy even though Einstein called the insertion of his cosmological constant “His big blunder” when it was discovered that the universe was not static.

As   mentioned earlier Einstein either could not or did not try to conceptually  integrate his cosmological constant or an expansive force now called Dark   Energy into the theoretical structure of Relativity possibly because, as mentioned earlier they are   both related to how three-dimensional space expanded or was prevented from   contracting with respect to a higher spatial dimension not a time or   space-time dimension.   

Therefore to understand Dark Energy in terms of Einstein space-time theory one would have to add a new *spatial* dimension to the three that it already contain to define its spatial properties thereby significantly increasing the complexity of its theoretical structure.

This would be true if Einstein had not given us the ability reformulate his space time theories in terms of four *spatial* dimensions when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of a dynamic balance between mass and energy defined by the equation E=mc^2.

As was just mentioned Einstein defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of a dynamic balance between mass and energy defined by the equation E=mc^2.  However when he used the constant velocity of light in that equation to define that balance he provided a method of converting a unit of space he associated with mass to a unit of space-time he associated with energy.   Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of mass/energy and 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.

As mentioned earlier it is difficult to integrate and define the causality of why three-dimensional space is expanding towards a higher *spatial” dimension into Einstein space-time universe because it does not define a higher spatial dimension. 

However one can easily integrate it into one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions because of the fact that it would allow three-dimensional space to expand toward a higher fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words if one reformulates Einstein’s equations and quantitatively defines energy in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimensions instead of one in a space-time environment one can understand how the observed spatial expansion of three-dimensional space associated with Dark Energy can occur.

We know from the study of thermodynamics that energy flows from areas of high density to area 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 sounding it.

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 that according to concepts developed in the article “Defining energy” (mentioned earlier) the three-dimensional “surface” of 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 two dimensional surface of the water in the pool three-dimensional space will accelerate and flow or expand outward in the four dimensional environment surround it.

This shows how reformulating Einstein space-time concept in terms of four *spatial* dimension can provide a theoretical understanding of the accelerative force called Dark Energy which can be generalize to broader environment than a space-time universe.

For example observations tell us that five to seven billion years ago, the expansion of the universe stopped slowing due to gravity and started to accelerate due to Dark Energy.

However this is exactly what one would expect if the theoretical model outlined above was correct because in the early universe the distance between it mass components was small relative to the its energy components.   Therefore gravitational forces would predominate.  However because gravitation force decease with the square of the distance there would come a time when the expansive forces associated with Dark Energy  would be predominate because they would, according the above model decease linearly with respect to gravities.

This shows why reformulating Einstein’s space-time universe into one of four *spatial* dimension allows it to be applied to a more broader more generalized environment and provide a theoretical understand of why we presently observed the expansive forces of Dark Energy overtaking the slowing force of gravity.

It should be remember Einstein’s genius allows us to chose weather to solve problems, such those associated with Dark matter or Dark Energy in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories by making them applicable to both the spatial as well as the time properties of our universe similar to how Newton laws of gravity broaden domain of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion to their moons.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013 

The post Reformulating space-time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.