You are more than welcome to join our Facebook group The Road to unifying Relativistic and Quantum Theories << https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnifyQMwithGR  >>to discuss these and other ideas on why our universe is what it is.

It should be remembered the ideas presented here are based EXCLUSIVELY on interoperations of Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

 

     

Thank you Jeffrey O'Callaghan

Relativity

Quantum mechanics

1.  Do the laws of physics break down in a black hole?

2.The effect gravity has on the geometry of space-time inside a black hole.

4.  Explaining mass and its resistance to acceleration in terms of the field properties of space time.

10. Using Einstein's theories to derive the quantum properties of a photon

11. Quantum Entanglement gives us a way to experimentally determine why the universe is what it is

12. Could Gravitational time dilation be responsible for Dark Energy? May 15, 2020

13. Understanding both the particle and wave properties of electromagnetic energy in terms of space-time

14. Why the future is what it is.

15. An alternative explanation for the anisotropy in the cosmic background radiation.

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory.

19. Should we allow math to be the only definition of reality

20. Karl Popper the philosophy of change

22.The double slit experiment in space-time

23. Using Einstein's theories to explain and predict dark matter. Dec. 15, 2020.

25. Defining antimatter in terms of the field properties of space-time

27. Could the energy density of a collapsing universe be responsible for its expansion?  

28. Einstein's block universe fact or fiction

32. Why the arrow of time is irreversible.

34 Should allow math to define our understanding of the universe or have it defined our math.

35. A bridge between quantum mechanics and relativity

38.Why our universe is asymmetric with respect to time but not the laws of physics

3. Can the geometry of space-time be responsible for the evolution of a quatnum system?

5. Quantum entanglement as defined by Einstein.  Nov. 10, 2022

6. Understanding the uncertainty principle in terms of the dynamics of space-time.

7. How should we define reality? 

8. Why the graviton is so hard to detect.

9. Deriving the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the determinism of space-time?

11. Entanglement providees a way to experimentally determine why the universe is what it is

16, Integrating gravity into Quantum electrodynamics or QED in terms of the field properties of space-time

17. Deriving the Probability amplitudes of quantum mechanics in terms of the physical properties  of space-time.  

20. Karl Popper on Falsifiability

21. The Realty behind the wave function and Relativity

22.The double slit experiment in space time Apr 1, 2021

24 Electron diffraction and the downfall of Quantum Mechanics

26. A possible solution to the problems of Quantum Computing

29. Quantum Tunneling in space time

30. A classical reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus of an atom

31. The dynamics of quantum superpositioning in terms of space time

33. Solving the cosmologic constant problem in terms of the dynamics of space time

37 Reality is what it is not what can be.

36 Why finding a Theory of Everything is so difficult.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1.  Do the laws of physics break down in a black hole?

    The existence of a singularity at the center of a black hole is often taken as proof that the Theory of General Relativity has broken down, which is perhaps not unexpected as it occurs in conditions where quantum effects should become important. However, as is shown below The General Theory of Relativity tells us the strength of the gravitational field at the event horizon of a black hole causes time to stop for all observers. The question is how can matter move beyond the event horizon if time has stopped with respect to all reference frames. Since motion is define as the change in an objects position over time the General Theory of Relatively does not break down because it tells us the movement of all matter must also stop at that point. Therefore, according to it laws it cannot continue to collapse to the point called a singularity.

In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein's theories relating to time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a black hole its laws do not break down because it tells us time freezes at its "surface" or event horizon with respect to all observers. Therefore, a singularity cannot form at its center because matter cannot continue to or collapse beyond that point.

The question we need to answer is should we assume that quantum mechanics breaks down because it predicts the existence of a singularity in the center of a black hole.

Einstein told us 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, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to all external observers because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

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.)

(However, some have suggested that a singularity would form in a black hole if the collapse of a star was not symmetrical with respect to its center. In other words, if one portion of its surface moved at a higher velocity that another towards its center it could not be consider an inertial reference frame because it would be pushed or pulled due to the differential gravity force cause be its uneven collapse. But the laws governing time dilation in Einstein's theory tell us that time would move slower for those sections of the surface that are moving faster allowing the slower ones to catch up. This tells us that every point on the surface of star will be at the event horizon at the exact same time and therefore its center will not experience any pushing or pulling at the time of its formation and therefore could be considered an inertial reference frame.)

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 it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for all observers who is at the center of the clasping mass and the contraction cannot continue from their perspectives.

However, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to an observer who is at the its center because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

Yet, 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 reaches the critical circumference. Therefore, an observer on the surface of that star 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 stopped with respect to all reference frames 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 star's 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 in its external environment would become infinitely dilated or stop when the surface of a collapsing star reaches its critical circumference.

Therefore, because the Laws of Relativistic physics tell us that time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference with respect to the external environment of an observer who riding on its surface the contraction cannot continue because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

However, it also tells us, the laws of relativistic physics are NOT repeat NOT violated in black hole with respect to all observers because of the time dilation associated with its gravitational field, the collapse of matter cannot proceed beyond its critical circumference to form a singularity.

*****

2. The effect gravity has on the geometry of space-time inside a black hole.

In an earlier posting (# 1. Do the laws of physics break down in a black hole? << https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm >>) we defined what happens to matter as it falls into a black hole and why a singularity cannot form at its center in terms of inertial reference frames as define by Einstein. However, now we would like to explain why one cannot form in terms of the effects gravity has on the geometry of his space-time universe.

The German physicist Karl Schwarzschild was the first to predict the existence of a black hole when in 1915, he found a solution to Einstein field equations which suggested the existence of perfectly spherical object embedded in otherwise empty space which not even light can escape from. The observations of black holes confirmed the existence of these spherical objects
Additionally, he determined where its event horizon would be with respect to its center in terms of the strength of its gravitational field. He also suggested that matter after passing though it would continue to “fall” towards the center forming a singularity where its entire mass is concentrated in a one-dimensional point.

HOWEVER, OBSERATIONS AND EINSTIENS FIELD EQUATIONS SUGGEST THAT MATTER MAY NOT REPEAT NOT BECOME CONCENTRATED IN A SINGULARITY OR ONE-DIMENSIONAL POINT AFTER ENCOUNTERING THE EVENT HORIZION OF A BLACK HOLE.

As mentioned earlier light cannot escape a black hole therefore we cannot observe what happens to matter after passing through its event horizon. This means physicists can ONLY repeat ONLY use the observations of what happens to matter before encountering it and Einstein field equations to understand what happens to it after it does.

Earlier it was mentioned Schwarzschild suggested that matter would continue to fall towards the center of a black hole after passing through its event horizon forming singularity at its center.

However, the observation and as was shown in the post mentioned earlier # 1. Do the laws of physics break down in a black hole? << https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm >>) matter moves slower and slower as it approaches the event horizon eventually stopping as at it reaches it suggests that a singularity may NOT repeat NOT form at its center.

This is because Einstein field equations which were used to defined where the event horizon occurs in a black hole did so in terms of where the strength of its gravitational field in relation to its center was strong enough to create one. However, this means there will be an internal event horizon at every point along the radius of a black hole where there was enough gravitational energy to create one. In other word, even though we cannot observe them Einstein field equations that Schwarzschild use to predict the existence of an event horizon tell us a black hole MAY repeat MAY consists of a series of internal ones at each point along its radius.

Therefore, his equations tell us at every point inside a black hole where there has enough gravitational potential to create an internal event horizon matter should behave similar to how it does when it encounters one, we can observe.

This suggest that matter does NOT repeat NOT continue to move towards the center of a black hole to form a singularity but is prevented from doing so by the gravitational barrier that exists at every point where its potential is large enough to create one.

So, if a singularly is not at the center of a black hole what is.

We know the densest form of observable matter is found in a neutron star where the gravitational forces are strong enough to overcome the forces keeping electrons protons and neutron apart.

However, their gravitational potential is not large enough to create a black hole.
Observations also tell us a neutron star is capable of becoming a black hole if it absorbs enough mass and energy to form an event horizon. However, that does not mean that its neutron core collapses to a singularity. This is because as was just shown Einstein field equations tell us the curvature of space-time at every point inside a black hole where the gravitational potential is large enough would create an internal event horizon.

This suggests a black hole may NOT repeat NOT be made up of matter that has completely collapsed to singularity but instead is made up of the core of a neutron star and matter “orbiting” or internally trapped in successive layers in the spherical geometry of space-time that defines an event horizon.

This suggests there MAY repeat MAY be a volume of space-time with no matter present between surface of its neutron core and where the first internal event horizon has formed.

This would be analogous to how planet orbits or is trapped in the gravitational field of a star. The total mass of a star system is made up of the sun and the planets trapped in a volume of space-time created its gravitational field.

Similarly, the total mass of black hole MAY repeat MAY consist of the core of a neutron star and the matter forever trapped by its internal event horizons.

*****

3. Can the geometry of space-time be responsible for the evolution of a quantum system?    

 

Quantum mechanics defines the evolution of its environment in terms of the mathematical properties of a wave function. Additionally, it assumes a quantum system exists simultaneously as both waves and particles and ONLY repeat ONLY becomes a particle when it interacts with its external world. However, it cannot tell us how or why that happens.

On the other hand, Einstein defines the evolution of a space-time environment in terms of the observable properties of an electromagnetic wave.

Therefore, to define why the geometry of space-time is responsible for the evolution of a quantum system one must show how and why its interactions with it causes it to APPEAR repeat APPEAR to exist simultaneously as both waves and particles.

To do that we must first establish a connection between it and the space-time geometry as defined by Einstein. This can be accomplished because the evolution of both a quantum and space-time environment are defined by a wave. For example, Relativity defines evolution of space-time in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while that of a Quantum system is defined in terms of the mathematics of a wave function.

This commonality suggests the wave function COULD repeat COULD be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

Therefore, one MAY repeat MAY be able to explain why a quantum system appears to exist simultaneously as both a wave and particle if one can define a mechanism for why it ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS appears to exist as a particle when observed or interacts with space-ime and a wave when it does not in terms of the geometry of space-time.

One can do this by using, the science of wave mechanics and the fact that Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so through time by interaction with its environment.

This is because the science of wave mechanics tells us a wave if confined will cause its energy to be reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave with respect walls of that confinement. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its resonance system.

Similarly, an electromagnetic wave which is prevented from moving through time will be confined to a specific volume of space causing its energy to be concentrated at the point in space, in the form of a standing wave where a quantum mechanics says a particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that quantum mechanics associates with a particle. This would define why when and electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving freely through space-time its energy is always quantized.

Putting it another way one can explain why a quantum system appears to simultaneously exist a particle and a wave when in REALITY it is only one or the other but not both at the same time and why it ONLY repeat ONLY becomes a particle when observed or interacts with a space-time environment. Additionally, it also defines a mechanism for why a particles energy is ALWAYS quantized.

*****

4.  Explaining mass and its resistance to acceleration in terms of the field properties of space time. 

Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration when a force is applied.

The Higgs boson was discovered at the CERN Particle Physics Laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, in 2012, which, according to the Standard Model of particle physics gives all other fundamental particles mass. However, despite the work of thousands of researchers around the world, nobody has been able to figure out exactly how it does that or why some particles are more massive than others.

However, there is another way to understand mass and its resistance to acceleration based solely on the field concepts of Einstein's theories.

For example, Einstein defined the physicality of mass in terms of the energy density associated with a displacement in space-time which he quantified by the equation E=mc^2. This means he also defined the why some particles are heavier than others is because they have a greater displacement and therefore a greater energy content than other particles. Pitting it another way the equation E=mc^2 not only defines physicality of mass but also quantifies why some particles are heavier that others in terms of in terms of the field properties of space-time.

However, he also tells us the rate at which energy can be added to mass is constant and limited by the speed of light. This suggests, according to Relativity, the reason why it resists acceleration is because the speed at which energy can be added to it is limited by the speed of light. Therefore. because the speed which at energy can be added to a mass is constant its acceleration would ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS be proportional to its energy content or mass. This suggest the reason the resistance that mass has to acceleration MAY repeat MAY not be related to the field properties of a Higgs boson but because of the fact that the speed of light limits the rate at which energy can be added to it.

This conclusion is supported by observation the resistance of particles to changes in motion increases as they approach the speed of light in particle accelerators. This is because he also tells us the relativistic mass or energy of a body increases over its rest mass as it is accelerated with respect to an observer. However, this suggest the reason why the resistance mass has to acceleration when in relative motion with respect to an observer is because its energy content relative to him is greater. Therefore, because the rate its energy content can be increased is limited by the speed of light, the faster a mass is moving with respect to an observer the greater its resistance to acceleration would be more than one that is moving slower or stationary with him.

In other words, one does not need the Higgs boson to explain a particles mass and why it resists a change in motion because one can use the OBSERVABLE properties of our environment and field properties of Einstein's theories to do so.

*****

5.  Quantum entanglement as define by Einstein

Presently, there is disconnect between our understanding of one of the most mysterious facets of quantum mechanics, that of quantum entanglement and the classical one of separation.

Entanglement occurs when two particles are linked together no matter their separation from one another. Quantum mechanics assumes even though these entangled particles are not physically connected, they still are able to interact or share information with each other instantaneously.

Many believe this means the universe does not live by the law's classical laws of separation or those derived by Einstein which state that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

However, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions because Einstein gave us the definitive answer as to how and why some particles, such as photons are entangled while others are NOT in terms of the physical properties of space-time.

Quantum mechanics assumes that entanglement occurs when two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. This connection persists even if you move one of the particles far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.

There is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of particles can instantaneously affect another even though they are physically separated from each other.

However, before we come to the conclusion it is a result of their quantum mechanical properties, we should first examine the experimental setup and any variables that may allow us to come to a different conclusion.

(This description was obtained from the Live Science web site) One of the experiments many assume verifies that entanglement is a quantum phenomenon uses a laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal which causes individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons. The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more. When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state (or information) between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. Scientists have successfully demonstrated quantum entanglement with photos, electrons, molecules of various sizes, and even very small diamonds).

However, Einstein told us there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance.

Therefore, he tells the distance between the observation points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons in the above experiment.

However, from that perspective his Theory of Special Relativity tells us the distance separating the end points of ALL observations made in a laboratory would contract along the direction of motion relative to a photon. Yet, it also tells us that the separation between those two points would be zero form the perspective of all photons moving at the speed of light. 

(Some have suggested that if you have two photons moving in opposite directions, you can only treat one as being stationary at a time, not both simultaneously" However that directly contradicts relativity because it means that from the perspective of the stationary one the lab where a measurement is made is moving at the speed of light away from it while the other one is moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction from the lab. However, that means the second photon is moving at twice the speed of light from the perspective of the first one. That is a direct contradiction of relativity because it would mean that they could transmit information between themselves at twice the speed of light. The only way to resolve this issue is to view the relativistic properties of each photon individually.)

For example, Einstein's math and observations tell us the time moves slower when an object is in relative motion and stops if it is moving at the velocity of light. Therefore, each photon because it is moving at the speed of light would view time to have stopped at the point where they were entanglement even though they are moving in opposite directions. Therefore, because from their perspective time has stop the information, they carry would not change no matter how far apart they might be. I think this is the definition of entanglement. 

The same would be true if you looked at it from the perspective of length contraction. Einstein's math tells us that the length contracts to zero from the perspective of anything moving at the speed of light. This means each photon even though they are moving in the opposite direction would view the distance between the endpoints of the measurements as being zero. Therefore, all photons which originate from the same point will be entangled because from their perspective the distance between the end point of the measurement will be zero.

One would come to the same conclusion if they are viewed in terms of their light cones because the base of the cone expands at the same velocity as the photons are moving away from their point of origin. Therefore, they will always be casually connected or entangled no matter how far apart they might be from that point.

(Some have also suggested that entanglement means information can be communicated faster than the speed of light in a quantum environment. However, because the information that photons are entangled can ONLY repeat ONLY be communicated from their origin to an observer in the future by photons means the information they contain can only move at the speed of light and NO repeat NO faster. This means even in a quantum environment information including that contained in entangled photons cannot be communicated faster than the speed of light.)

Therefore, according to Einstein's theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be from the perspective of an observer who is looking at them.

In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of space-time as defined by Einstein as well as by Quantum Mechanics.

One way of verifying if this is correct would be to determine if particles which were NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement over the same distances as photons do.

This is because, the degree of relativistic shortening between the end points of the observations of two particle is dependent on their velocity with respect to the laboratory where they are being observed.

Therefore, if it was found that only photons experience entanglement when the observation points were separated by large distances while others that are not moving at the speed of light do not it would support the idea that it is a result of the relativistic properties of space defined by Einstein and not by their Quantum mechanical properties.

However, one must remember the wave particle duality of existence as defined by Quantum mechanics and the fact that the wave properties of all particle has been confirmed through observations tell us that before a particle has an extended length due to its wavelength. Therefore, all particles will be entangled if the reduction in length between the endpoints of the observations when adjusted for their relative velocity is less their wave length as defined by quantum mechanics.

A more conclusive argument could be made for the idea that entanglement is a result of the relativistic properties of space if it was found that entanglement ceased if the relativistic distance between the end points of observation when viewed from the perspective of particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its wavelength as defined by quantum mechanics.

6 Understanding the uncertainty principal in terms of the dynamics of space time

Quantum mechanics states what the universe is made of while not giving an explanation of why it is that way in terms of the observable properties of our universe while Relativity gives us an explanation of why it is what it is but does not tell us what it is made of.

For example, the quantum world is defined by how the mathematical properties of the wave function interact with the wave-particle duality of existence. However, it also tells us that one can NOT precisely determined both the momentum and position of a particle at the same time. But does NOT provide an explanation for why this uncertainty exists in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe. On the other hand, Relativity explains the existence of the universe and the particles it contains in terms of an interaction between space and time without telling us what wave-particle duality of existence is or how it interacts with it to create the Uncertainty Principal as defined by quantum mechanics in terms of observations.

Therefore, to understand its dynamics in terms of space-time we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the observable properties of space-time.

One can accomplish this by using the fact that in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

This means one MAY repeat MAY be able to explain the wave particle duality existence associated with the wavefunction in terms of interaction between space and time. This is because the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another OBSERVATION OF A RELAITISIC ENVIROMENT tell us when an electromagnetic wave that was earlier associated with the wave function is prevented from moving through space-time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

(The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space-time it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through it therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. Therefore, the wave itself defines its boundaries.

This shows how based on observation of a relativistic environment if an electromagnetic is prevented from evolving through space by an observation or encountering an object its wave properties collapse or is “reduced” and presents itself as a particle.)

Yet, this is also consistent with the observations of quantum environment in that the mathematical properties associated with the wave function will continue to evolve similar to how electromagnetic wave continues to evolve through a space-time universe and that it only “collapses” to a particle when it is observed or encounters an object.

Putting it another way it shows how one can explain and predict the evolution of a quantum environment BASED ON OBSERVATIONS of a relativistic one.

Next, we must explain how the energy or information “volume” of a system is responsible for both the uncertainty involved in measurement of the CONJUGATE PAIRS such as the momentum and position of an object or particle in both a relativistic and quantum environment.

Relativity and the science of wave mechanics tell us the energy of the standing wave which earlier defined a particle would be distributed over a volume of space-time that corresponds to is wavelength.

However, to measure the CONJUGATE PAIRS OF A SYSTEM INCLUDING THE MOMENTUM OR POSITION in both quantum and relativistic environment one must determine where relative to the information or energy volume of system the measurements are being taken. Therefore, there will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS be an uncertainty if one cannot determine where those points are with respect to a systems information or energy volume.

The fact that both of these theories assume that energy or information of a system can nether be created or destroy provides the basis for the connecting the uncertainty principal to the space-time environment of Relativity.

THIS IS BECAUSE IT MEANS THE MEASUREMENT OF ANYONE ONE OF THE CONJUGATE PAIRS OF A SYSTEM INCLUDING THE MOMENTUM OR POSITION WILL AFFECT THE OTHER.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines both the momentum and position of particle with respect to a one-dimensional point in the mathematical field of the wave function. However, the accuracy of the information as to where that point is in relation to its information volume is directly related to how much of it is taken from the system. This means the more accurate the measurement the more information regarding it must be removed from the system and the less is available to measure the other component of its Conjugate pair.

For example, as was mentioned earlier because the information “volume” of a system remains constant the more of it taken out regarding its momentum means there will be less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less information left in its information “volume” to define it. While the more information taken out of it regarding its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less information left in that in its information volume to define it. This would be true for all Conjugate pairs.

However, the same would be true when measuring either the momentum or position of a particle in a relativistic system because as was mentioned earlier its energy is also conserved. Therefore because, the accuracy of a measurement is directly related to the amount to energy is available to define a system; the measurement of each component of momentum or position of a system will affect the other. For example, the added energy required to make a more accurate measurement of a systems momentum will result in there being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less energy in that system to define it. While the more additional energy required to make a more accurate measurement of its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less energy left in the system to define it.

This shows how one can the explain the existence of the Uncertainty Principle and understand why it must be used in a quantum environment in terms of the dynamics of space-time.

*****

7. How should we define reality   

*****

This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to DEFINE the “reality” of our universe.

Some attempt to predict it ONLY on the abstract mathematical analysis of an environment.

For example, Quantum mechanics DESCRIBES the "reality" or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made. However, describing it in those terms means that each probabilistic outcome of an event can become one in the future. This is why some proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.

This also may be one reason why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

However, others DEFINE it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship between the OBSERVABLE movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a “reality” which could predict their future movements based on observations of their previous movements.

Both the probabilities of quantum mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws give valid DESCRIPTIONS of “a reality” because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.

However, the purpose of theoretical physics is NOT ONLY to define and predict what we observe but WHY repeat WHY we observe it.

For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they did not define why those laws exist.

However, Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an "alternative reality" that could quantitatively make the same predictions as Newtons laws did.

Additionally, even though it proposed a different “reality” than the one that Newton used to define his gravitational laws it did not affect their validity while explaining why they are in terms of how objects move along a curved surface of three-dimensional space.

This shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could define Newton's laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum mechanics that would not affect their validity. This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.

As was mentioned earlier describing “reality” in ONLY terms of the abstract mathematics of quantum mechanics means each outcome CAN become one in the future. But as was mentioned earlier this means one can assume separate ones are created for every event for which we have NO repeat NO observational evidence for.

Yet this would NOT be true if that outcome was the result of an interaction between it and a physical property of our observable universe.

For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one, we will occupy after it is rolled. This is because the probability of getting a six is determined or caused by its physical interaction with the observable properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled and NOT repeat NOT on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. In other words, what defines the “reality” of getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies. Putting it another way the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

It has been shown Quantum mechanics and Newton were able to define the observable properties of our universe but were unable to explain why we observe what we do in terms of observations.

But that does NOT repeat NOT mean we should not look for a way to do so.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

As was mentioned earlier what defines the “reality” of getting a six when rolling a dice in casino is not the probability of getting one but the physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.

Similarly, what defines the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics MAY repeat MAY not be related to abstract math but the interactions of a quantum environment with the properties of its environment.

Putting it another way there MAY repeat MAY be an alternative “reality” that NOT only can define the accuracy of the prediction of quantum mechanics but can also to explain why based on the observable properties of our environment why they are.

What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves should we not only attempt to predict “reality” but why it is what is it.

8. Why the graviton is so hard to detect.

Quantum mechanics assumes the mathematical evolution of the wavefunction is responsible for quantization of ALL mass and energy. Additionally, it assumes it exists in a superposition of several eigenstates and only reduces or collapses to a particle ONLY repeat ONLY when it interacts with its environment or an observer.

Therefore, many feel detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantized. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak and for that reason, detecting them is extremely difficult.

However, Einstein in his General Theory of relativity defined gravity in terms of the energy density of space. Therefore, one way of defining quantum gravity would be to show how and why it is quantized in terms in terms of his theory in a manner that is consistent with the mathematical foundations of Quantum mechanics.

The fact gravitational waves have been observed suggests it has properties similar to other energy waves, such as electromagnetic with one very important difference: they do NOT interact with it environment or an observer in the same way. This suggests the reason a graviton is so hard to detect while the photon or quantum electromagnetic energy is MAY NOT be related to its weakness but to how it interacts with its environment.

But before we can understand why we need to establish a connection between the evolution of the wavefunction, its collapse and electromagnetic waves. This can be accomplished because in Relativity evolution of a space-time environment is defined by an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the mathematics of the wave function defines how a Quantum environment evolves to create a particle.

This commonality suggests the wave function MAY BE a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. However, if this is true one should be able to derive the reason for its collapse in a manner that is consistent with the mathematical foundations of Quantum mechanics.

This can be done by using the science of wave mechanics and the fact that Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through space by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to COLLAPSE or to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

(The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through space therefore, it will be reflected back creating a resonate standing wave.)

In other words, if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space-time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would create a QUANTIZED repeat QUANTIZED increase the energy density of the space it occupies.

However gravitational waves do not interact or exchange energy with their environment in the same way as an electromagnetic one therefore their energy will not be confined to three-dimensional space and quantized as is the case with electromagnetic waves.

For example, gravity waves have only been observed when they squeeze and stretch space. However, that observation does not result in an exchange of energy between it and the observer.

However, quantum mechanics assumes the wave function reduces to a quantized unit of energy ONLY repeat ONLY when it is observed or interacts with its environment.

This suggests the reason why a graviton is so hard to detect MAY NOT be because it is weak but MAY be related to how we are trying to observe it.

This is because gravity waves, as was just mentioned do NOT interact with either the environment they are moving through or the equipment used to observe it. Therefore, according the rules of quantum mechanics the wave function SHOULD NOT and WILL NOT collapse to create a graviton unless we can find a way to get it to interact with its environment.

Putting it another way Quantum mechanics tells us just watching it pass by will not produce a graviton.

*****

9. Deriving the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the determinism space-time?    

Currently there are two primary ways science attempts to explain and define the behavior of our universe. The first is Quantum mechanics or the branch of physics which defines its evolution in terms of the probabilities associated with the wave function. The other is Einstein relativistic one which defines it in terms of the deterministic properties of space and time

Specifically, Einstein defines the evolution of a space-time environment in terms of an electromagnetic wave while quantum mechanics uses the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function to define the most probable configuration of a system when it interacts with its environment or an observer.

Since we all live in the same world you would expect the probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics to be compatible with the deterministic one of Einstein. Unfortunately, they define two different worlds which APPEAR to be incompatible. One defines existence in terms of the probabilities associated with the wavefunction while the other defines it in terms of the deterministic properties of space and time.

However, even though those probabilities appear to be incompatible with Relativity's determinism it can be shown that one MAY be the causality of the other.

For example, when one roles dice in a casino most of us realize the probability of a six appearing is related to or caused by its physical interaction with properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. Putting it another way what defines the casualty of a six appearing is NOT the probability of getting one but the interaction of the dice with the table and environment of the casino it occupies.

Therefore, to understand how the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function can be caused by an interaction between it and space-time one must show how and why it is responsible for them.

But before we begin, we need to establish a connection between it and the deterministic universe of space-time. This can be accomplished because as was mentioned earlier in Relativity the evolution of space-time is a result of an electromagnetic wave interacting with while the mathematics associated with wave function represents how a Quantum environment evolves to define a systems configuration when it interacts with an observer or its environment.

This suggests the wave function that governs the probabilistic evolution of a quantum environment may be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave that governs it in space-time. If true one should be able to derive its properties in terms of the deterministic of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us wave energy moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from through space by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space-time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties because as was just mentioned if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through it therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. Putting it another way a particle is a wave that is moving ONLY IN time and NOT THROUGH time and space.

Yet, this is similar to how quantum mechanics define the evolution of its environment in the sense that its wave properties only become a particle when in interacting with it.

However, that also tells us a particle would occupy an extended volume of space defined by the wavelength of its standing wave. This suggests what defines the fact that a particle appears where it does is NOT determined by probabilities associated with the wavefunction but an interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the physical properties of space-time.

However, the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is NECESSARY in part because Quantum Mechanics defines the position of a particle in terms of mathematical point in space which would be randomly distributed with respect to a center of the standing wave which earlier defined one.

Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space. This means one must define where it appears in terms of probabilities to average the deviations that are caused by the random placement of that point.

The reason why Relativity is deterministic is because those deviations are average out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.

This shows how it is possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the determinism of space-time by assuming the wavefunction is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic in it.

*****
10. Using Einstein's theories to derive the quantum properties of a photon

Einstein tells us particles with mass cannot move faster than the speed of light while Quantum Mechanics tells us that all energy including electromagnetic MUST be quantized and therefore it assumes it is propagated by a particle called a photon.

However, because observations of particles in particle accelerators APPEARS to verify Einstein assumption that if photons had mass, they COULD NOT move at the speed of light one must assume that they have no mass.

But if it has no mass, it also has no energy because his equation E=mc^2 tells us energy is equivalent to mass.

(Some have tried to use a mathematical argument the equation E=mc^2 is a special case of the more general equation: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 which for a particle with no mass (m = 0), reduces down to E = pc. Therefore, because photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and they get all of their energy from their momentum. However, the "p" in the equation NOT ONLY represents the momentum of a photon it also represents the energy associated with its motion. Thus, according to E=mc^2 that energy MUST also be considered mass.)

Putting it another way Einstein tells us it does NOT MATER how we define the energy of a photon the fact that it has energy means it also has mass and therefore, SHOULD NOT be able move at the speed of light.

Some have also suggested that because "E" is the total relativistic energy, which consists of rest mass (mc^2), and momentum (pc) it is fundamentally wrong to say that anything with energy has mass. Therefore, a photon with momentum can still carry energy even if it has no rest mass.

However, momentum is defined as p = mv in Newtonian physics and in relativity p=mc. Therefore, it is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG as some have suggested to say that the momentum of a photon can have ZERO mass because if it did the energy value of particle with no or 0 mass define by E = pc would be zero.

Therefore, because observations of particles in particle accelerators APPEAR to verify Einstein assumption that if photons had energy, they COULD NOT move at the speed of light one needs to explain how its energy can be propagated at that speed in terms of his theories.

One can use the science of wave mechanics to understand how this is possible because it tells us waves move energy from one location to another without transporting the material they are moving on. In other words, the molecules that make up the wave remain stationary with respect to the background of the water while its energy is propagated through it.

Similarly, an electromagnetic wave in space-time COULD move at the speed of light because it does not move the “units” of space-time associated with the peaks and valleys it creates but would transmit their energy to the next one. In other words, the units of space-time that make up an electromagnetic wave WOULD remain stationary with respect to the background of space-time while its energy moves through it in the form of a wave.

However, one can also use the science of wave mechanics to understand why an electromagnetic wave ALWAYS takes on the form of a particle called a photon when it interacts with an observer or the its environment.

For example, wave mechanics tells us an electromagnetic wave would move through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. It also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This explains how and why an electromagnetic energy wave becomes quantized in the form of a particle called a photon if it is prevented from moving through space-time by interacting an observer or the "external world".

Quantum mechanics uses the mathematical properties of the wavefunction to define a quantum environment and states that it maintains its wave properties and becomes quantized ONLY repeat ONLY when it is observed or interacts with its external environment.

Therefore, as was shown above assuming a photons energy is propagated by a electromagnetic wave allows one to understand why it appears as a particle called a photon ONLY when it interacts with its environment or an observer in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions of both of Einstein Theories and Quantum mechanics.

However, it also shows how, if one assumes as was just done that electromagnetic energy is propagated BY a wave NOT by a particle one can explain how its energy can be propagated at the speed of light.

*****

11. Entanglement gives us a way to experimentally determine why the universe is what it is.  Apr.4, 2021

Entanglement provides an experimental way of determining if Quantum mechanics or Einstein's Relativistic theories define why our universe is what it is.

This is because it is one of the core principles of quantum physics. In short it assumes two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum. It assumes this connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.

However, it contradicts a core principle of Einstein's Theory of Relativity which states that no information can be transmitted instantaneously or faster than the speed of light.

Since these two concepts are diametrically opposite, if one can define the experiment that shows one how of these theories contradict its definition of entanglement while the other supports it MAY repeat MAY tell us why the universe is what it is.

This is because there is irrefutable experimental evidence the act of measuring the state of one of a pair of photons instantaneously affect the other even though they are physically separated from each other.

As was mentioned earlier quantum physics, assumes ALL entangled particles, not only photons remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances, while Einstein tells us that instantaneous or faster than light communication between to particles is impossible.

However, he also told us the relative distance between two objects or points in space is defined by their relative motion with respect to those points and there is no preferred reference frame by which one can define that distance.

Therefore, he tells us the distance between the observational points in a laboratory, can be defined from the perspective of the photons moving at the speed of light.

Yet, his formula for length contraction tells us the separation from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light between the two points use to determine entanglement would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and those points as moving at the velocity of light with respect to them.

Therefore, according to Einstein's theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are entangled no matter how far they may appear to be someone who is looking at them. Additionally, it also tells us information exchange between two entangle photons does not travel faster than the speed of light because from their perspective the distance between the observation points where information was read is zero.

(Some have suggested that if you have two photons moving in opposite directions, you can only treat one as being stationary at a time, not both simultaneously" However that directly contradicts relativity because it means that from the perspective of the stationary one the lab where a measurement is made is moving at the speed of light away from it while the other one is moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction from the lab. However, that means the second photon is moving at twice the speed of light from the perspective of the first one. That is a direct contradiction of relativity because it would mean that they could transmit information between themselves at twice the speed of light.

The only way to resolve this issue is to assume that from their perspective they are not moving at the speed of light with respect to the lab. Putting it another way from their perspective each one MUST repeat MUST be moving at half the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to their point of origin in the lab which means they both share the same light cone as the lab and therefore their time lines will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS overlap.

One can understand how Einstein's may have viewed this by using his concept of light cones. If one draws a time line connecting their apex together and then one to their point of organ or where they intersect it would form an equilateral triangle. Then if one draws a perpendicular time line from their point of organ to the one that connects their apexes together it would divide it in half. I believe this means the velocity from the perspective of each photon with respect to their origin will be half the speed of light)

In other words, entanglement of photons can be explained and predicted terms of the relativistic properties of space-time as defined by Einstein as well as by quantum mechanics.

HOWEVER, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER ONE OF THE CORE PRINCIPALS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS IS THAT ALL ENTANGLED PARTICLES SHARE ON A QUANTUM LEVEL ONE OR MORE PROPERTIES SUCH AS SPIN POLARIZATION OR MOMENTUM.

This gives us a way of experimentally determining which of these two theories define why entanglement occurs because if it is found that some particleswhich are NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement it would validate one of the core principals of quantum mechanics and invalidate Relativities assumption that information cannot be exchange instantaneously or faster that the speed of light.

However, one MUST ALSO use another core principle of quantum mechanics defined by De Broglie that particles are made up of waves with a wavelength defined by ? = h/p along with the observations that all matter including quantum entities have wave properties. This is because it tells us all matter has an extended volume equal to their wavelength

Yet because ALL particles have an extended volume equal to their wavelength there will be an overlap or entanglement if the distance separating them is less than their volume as defined by its wave properties.

This tells us some particles moving slower than the speed of light CAN BE entangled if the relativistic distance between the observation points from their perspective is less than their extended volume because that would mean from their perspective they are in physical contact.

This means both relativity and quantum mechanics tell us that all particles CAN be entangled if the distance between the end points of the measurements of their shared properties is less than their wavelength or volume as defined by De Broglie.

However, this gives us a way to DEFINITIVELY determining which one of these theories defines the reason for entanglement because we can precisely define the wavelength and therefore the volume of a particle by, as mentioned earlier using De Broglie formula ? = h/p while one can determine, the relative distance between the observational points from the perspective of the particles being observed by using Einstein formula for length contraction.

If it is found entanglement DOES NOT occur if that distance is greater than a particles volume then it would invalidate the core principles of quantum mechanics that two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum no matter how far they are separated.

However, if it is found that entanglement DOES occur even if the separation was greater than their volume it would invalidate the core principals of relativity that no information can be transferred faster that the speed of light.

In other words, it gives us an experimental way to UNEQUIVOCALLY determine if Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's' theories define why the universe is what it is.

 *****

12.  Could Gravitational time dilation be responsible for Dark Energy?

On 8 January 1998, researchers announced the startling discovery that the universe's expansion is speeding up due to what is has come to be called Dark Energy. Another team, the High-Z Supernova Search Team, independently confirmed the discovery soon after. Until then, most astronomers had thought that cosmic expansion should be slowing due to the gravitational attraction among stars, galaxies, and other matter.

There are several explanations for it including it is a property of space or comes from the its quantum properties.

Another possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct.

However, another possibility is that has been overlooked is that it is DIRECT RESULT his definition of the slowing of time by gravity in his General Theory of Relativity.

Einstein told us and it has been observed the rate at which time passes is perceived to be slower in all environments where the gravitational potential is greater with respect to where it is being observed. This means the further we look back in time, where the gravitational potential of the universe's was greater due to the more densely pack matter, the estimate of its rate of expansion would be slower when observed form the present than it actually was if that were not taken into consideration.

Putting it another way the dilation or the slowing of time caused by the differential gravitational potential between the past and the present means the universe was expanding faster in the past than it would appear to be from the present.

However, we also know gravity has a slowing effect on the universe's expansion and because as the density of matter decreases due to its increasing volume the rate of that slowing also decreases.

This means the rate of its expansion would be faster than it would appear to be from the perspective of present due to the effects gravity has on time while the rate of its slowing would be declining due to its decreasing gravitational potential as it expands.

Yet, because of the non-linear effects of these two processes there will be a point in its history where one MAY repeat MAY appear to overtake the other.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS POSSIBLE THE OBSERVATIONS SUGGESTING UNIVERSE EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE EFFECTS GRAVITY HAS ON TIME WHICH WOULD MAKE IT TO APPEAR TO EXPANDING SLOWER IN THE PAST THAN IT ACTUALLY DID.

One could justify further research by using the observation that about 4 billion years ago the universe's expansion appears to have changed from decelerating to an accelerated phase. This is because one could derive its actual rate of expansion in the past by using Einstein equations to determine how much our perception of its expansion would have been slowed due to the differential gravitational potential between the past and present. If it was found after that correction the its expansion rate before 4 billion year ago was faster than it is now it would suggest that its expansion is NOT accelerating but still decelerating.

Some may say the slowing of time due to gravity would not affect our perception of its expansion. However, Einstein tells us the timing of events that cause the universe to expand is locked in the past along with its gravitational potential at the time the expansion took place. Therefore, one MUST repeat MUST take it into account when defining its expansion.

*****

13. Understanding both the particle and wave properties of electromagnetic energy in terms of space-time.  

In his formulation of electromagnetism Maxwell described light as a propagating electromagnetic wave created by the interaction of its electric and magnetic fields.

However, in Quantum mechanics electric and magnetic fields are NOT propagated by a wave but the particle called a photon.

Therefore, to fully define their observable properties in terms of space-time one must first show how and why they interact with it to create an electromagnetic wave and then explain its photonic or particle ones in terms of the quantum mechanical definition of a particle.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity defined the forces associated with gravity in terms of a geometric curvature in space-time whose line of action is static and perpendicular to one of the axes of three-dimensional space. Therefore, one could connect the forces associated with electromagnetic wave to those of gravity if one could define both in terms of that geometry.

As was just mentioned gravity's line of action is static and whose line of action is perpendicular to only one axis of three-dimensional space However, that does NOT mean the other two axis of three-dimensional space cannot contribute to energy content of space.

IT CAN AND WILL BE SHOWN THE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC COMPONENT OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ARE RESULT OF SPATIAL DISPLACEMENTS IN THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE OF THREE DIMENSIOAL SPACE THAT IS PERPENDULAR TO THE LINE OF ACTION OF GRAVITY.

One can understand the mechanism responsible by using the analogy of how a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

The science of wave mechanics tells us a force would be developed by these displacements which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or becoming "attracted" to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly, an energy wave on the "surface" of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to the axis of gravitational forces 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 the properties of two of the three spatial dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by an energy wave on it which will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become "attracted" to each other as the wave moves through space.

This defines the causality of the attractive electrical fields associated with an electromagnetic wave that Maxwell used to described light in terms of a force caused by the alternating displacements of a wave moving with respect to time on a "surface" of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to the axis of gravitational forces.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar electrical fields of an electromagnetic wave repel each other. This is because observations of waves show there is a direct relationship between the magnitude 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 the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to line of action of gravitational forces by two similar electrical fields will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, they will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for them than it would be for a single one.

One can also derive the magnetic component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the horizontal force developed along the axis that is perpendicular to the displacement caused by its peaks and troughs associated with the electric fields. This would be analogous to how the perpendicular displacement of a mountain generates a horizontal force on the surface of the earth, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ARE IN PHASE OR MAXIMUM AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.

As was shown above the science of wave mechanics allows one to explain the how the electric and magnetic forces interact to form an electromagnetic wave by assuming it is moving through time on the two dimensional "surface" of space-time that is perpendicular to the line of action of gravitational forces.

THIS SHOWS THAT ONE CAN DERIVE BOTH THE FORCES ASSOCIATED WITH AN ELECTROMAGNET WAVE AND GRAVITY IN TERMS OF THE GEOMETRY OF SPACE-TI M E AS DEFINED BY EINSTIEN.

However, to understand how and why an electromagnetic wave evolves into photon in a quantum environment one must connect its evolution to that environment.

One way of doing this is to use the fact that evolution of energy in both a quantum and space-time environment are in part defined by waves. For example, Relativity defines evolution in space-time in terms of the energy propagated by an electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function. Additionally, it defines the existence of the particle properties of the wave function in terms of its interaction with an observer or its external environment.

This suggests the wave function that governs the evolution of a quantum environment may be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave that defines evolution in space time. If true one should be able to derive the existence of the particle or photonic properties of an electromagnetic wave terms its interaction with space-time.

Again, one can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the properties of space-time as define by Einstein.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us wave energy moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This defines how and why the field properties of an electromagnetic wave evolves in quantum environment to create a photon ONLY when observed or when someone or something interacting interacts with it. 

Putting another way if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space-time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

This shows one can define a common mechanism for the forces for electromagnetism, gravity and the Quantum mechanical properties of photons in terms of a common mechanism based on the geometry of space-time as defined by Einstein.

Some have suggested the above explanation of Electromagnetism is incorrect because the physical orientation of its wave properties would become distorted or polarized as is passed through a gravitational field. Therefore, all light that passed through a gravitational lens would be polarized because the lateral acceleration of gravity was excluded. They feel the above explanation is falsified because this is not observed. However, because the shift in its orientation as it enters a gravitational lens would be opposite of what it would experience leaving it would cancel and therefore light traveling through one would NOT observe it to be polarized.

*****

14. Why the future is what it is.

Classical physics is causal; a complete knowledge of the past allows for the precise prediction of the future. Likewise, complete knowledge of the future allows for the prediction of the past.

Not so in Quantum mechanics because the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction tells all of the possible futures simultaneously exist before a measurement is made.

This is why a quantum mechanics assumes is all of the futures predicted by the wave function are Superposition or exist in separate quantum states at the same time even AFTER one has become reality in our observational environment.

On the surface these probabilistic and causal definitions of the future appear to be incompatible.

However, that MAY NOT repeat MAY NOT be the case.

As mentioned earlier, what separates the future associated with classical physics from the probabilistic one of quantum mechanics is one tells us All of the probable outcomes of an event EXIST simultaneously while the other hand the one defined by classical physics tells us there is ONLY one.

However, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after the roll. This is because the probability of getting a six is related to its physical interaction with properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. This means the probability of getting one is determined by the physical properties of the dice and the casino it occupies. Putting it another way, the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the future of the casino the casino defines the future of the dice.

Similarly, just because Quantum mechanics defines outcome of observations in terms of probabilities would not mean all of those probable outcome's exist if they are caused by a physical interaction with the environment it occupies. In other words, like the dice, it is possible the wavefunction does not define the future of its environment the environment defines the future of the wavefunction.

However, to define a reason probabilistic and causal definitions of the future are NOT repeat NOT incompatible one must show how the interaction of quantum system with its environment creates an outcome in terms the observable environment associated with the classical laws of physics. This can be accomplished because both define the evolution of their environments in terms of waves. Putting it another way the evolution of our observable environment can be define in terms of how an electromagnetic wave interacts with it while Quantum mechanics defines of a quantum environment in terms of the mathematical wave properties of the wavefunction.

This commonality suggests wavefunction which defines the evolution of a quantum system MAY be represented by an electromagnetic wave in a classical environment.

This suggests that one could use that commonality to understand how the interaction of quantum system with its environment creates an outcome in terms of the classical laws of physics. This is because classical wave mechanics tell us electromagnetic wave moves through space unless it is prevented from by doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This explains the quantized or particle properties of a quantum existence in terms of the physical properties of the environment it occupies.

Additionally, it tells us that one does not have to assume all of the futures predicted by the wave function are Superposition or simultaneously exist if like the dice mentioned earlier, one assumes the wavefunction does not define the future of its environment the environment defines the future of the wavefunction.

Putting it another way, the reason why the future is what it is in a quantum environment MAY be because the wavefunction does not define the future of its environment its environment defines the future of its wavefunction.

*****

15  An alternative explanation for the anisotropy in the cosmic background radiation.

In the 1950s, there were two competing theories regarding the origin of the universe.

The first or the Steady State Theory was formulated by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle. It postulated that the universe was homogeneous in space and time and had remained that way forever.

The second is called the Big Bang theory, which is based on the observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929 that the universe was expanding.

However, a few physicists led by George Gamow a proponent of the big bang theory showed an expanding universe meant that it might have had its beginning in a very hot infinitely dense environment, which then expanded to generate the one we live in today.

They were able to show only radiation emitted approximately 300,000 years after its beginnings should be visible today because before that time the universe was so hot that protons and electrons existed only as free ions making the universe opaque to radiation. It was only after it cooled enough due to is expansion to enable protons and electrons to join did it become visible. This period is referred as the age of "recombination".

Additionally, they predicted this Cosmic Background Radiation or what was left over from that period would have cooled form several thousand degrees Kelvin back when it was generated to 2.7 today due to the expansion of the universe.

The conflict between the Steady State and Big Bang Theory was resolved when it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 because it showed the temperature of the universe had changed through time, which was a direct contradiction to the Steady State Model".

However, if the universe began as an expansion of in an infinitely dense hot environment one would expect the universe and the Cosmic Background Radiation to be homogeneous because an infinitely dense one must have been, by definition homogeneous. Therefore, if the universe was homogeneous when it began it should still be.

But the existence of galactic clusters and the variations in the intensity of the cosmic background radiation discovered by NASA's WMAP and more recently the European Space Agency Planck satellite showed the universe was not homogeneous either now or at the time when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

Many proponents of the big bang model assume that these variations or "anisotropy" in the universe are caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy density of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

However, there is an alternative explanation for the variations or "anisotropy" in the cosmic background radiation that is NOT based on quantum fluctuations.

We still have not been able to determine if the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or if it will eventually collapse in on itself. But if it did the heat generated could provide another explanation for the variations in the Cosmic Background if it was enough to cause protons and electrons to become ionized again. This is because the radiation pressure caused by the heat of its collapse would result in it again expanding and cooling which would enable protons and electron to again rejoin creating another age of "recombination"

This suggest that the variations in the CBM MAY NOT be due to any quantum phenomena as is suggested by the Big Bang hypothesis but to the randomness of the thermodynamic expansion and collapse of a previous universe.

Many proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis have ALSO suggested it is the only model that can accurately predict abundance of the light-elements in today's universe. This is because both theory and observation have led astronomers to believe the mechanism responsible for creating the lighter elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) occurred in the first few minutes after the Big Bang before the CBM was emitted, while the heavier elements are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the universe. However, the abundance of those light elements would be dependent on rate the universe expanded and the temperature profile at each point in it. Yet because as was mentioned earlier they are unable to observe what happened before the CBM many use the

observations of their abundance in today's universe IN PART to help them define the conditions responsible for their creation. Therefore, the reason why the big bang hypothesis CAN verify the abundance of the light-elements in today's universe MAY be because it was used (in part) to determine those conditions.

\However, as was mentioned earlier one would not have to consider the abundance of the light elements if one bases the rate of expansion before the CBR was emitted on its present rate.

This is because one could use the observable rate of expansion of our present universe to estimate its expansion rate and temperature at each point in its history even before the CBM was created. This would allow one define a mechanism that is responsible for the abundance of the lighter elements and the "anisotropy" in the cosmic background radiation which would be based ONLY on its observable rate of expansion and NOT (in part) on the current the abundance of the lighter elements as the big bang model does.

*****

16, Integrating gravity into Quantum electrodynamics or QED in terms of the field properties of space-time.  

Quantum electrodynamics or QED is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. It's a theoretical framework which combines classical field theory, special Relativity and the quantum mechanical properties of particles as excited states of quantum fields, which it assumes are more fundamental than the particles. However, it has not been able to derive gravity in terms of that field.

While in Relativity the exchange of energy between particles is derived terms of the evolution of its field properties caused by an electromagnetic wave and derives gravity in terms of an increase in its local energy density.

However, QED's explanation of the double slit experiment also suggests a wave is responsible of the evolution of particles.

“This is because it assumes when an electron passes through the double slit, the wave properties it associates with its quantum field interfere. It says this interference results in the wave collapsing to form a particle and its position is defined at the location where the electron quantum field is elevated. So, an electron or particle cannot appear in any locations where the electron quantum field interferes destructively. This gives rise to the interference pattern on the back screen.”

However, as was mentioned earlier Einstein derived gravity in terms of increase in the local energy density of a space-time field.

This means one MAY be able to integrate gravity into QED by showing a how the interaction of wave in both a Relativistic and QED field is responsible for creating a quantized increase the local energy density their respective fields.

This can be done by using the science of wave mechanics and the fact Relatively tells us wave energy would move continuously through a space-time field unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to a three-dimensional field consisting of only space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the wave energy to collapsed and be CONCENTRATED at the point in space resulting in increasing the energy density of the field at that point. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

This mechanism is similar to how QED defines the collapse the field properties of a particle as being caused interference of its field properties.

This means both QED and Relativity can define the quantization of gravity in terms of the collapse of the wave properties of their respect fields. QED assumes the wave properties it associates with a quantum field interfere and causes it to COLLASPE into a particle thereby increasing the energy density in that field. While as was shown above the science of wave mechanics also tells us if a wave in a space-time field is prevented from moving through it would cause it to COLLASPE resulting in a quantized increase in energy density of the three-dimensional field it occupies.

Therefore, they both can define why gravity is quantized if one assumes as Einstein did it is a result of terms of an increase in in the local energy density of space.

However, because we cannot observe a quantum field the assumption made by QED that its interference with itselfresults in it becoming quantized is NOT repeat NOT supported by observations. Yet, we can observe how waves interfere with the three-dimensional aspects of Einstein four-dimensional space-time field to from quantized resonant systems as was show above to allow one to define quantum gravity.

What we have to decide as Scientists, should we use observable properties of Einstein space-time field to construct and test hypotheses and theories on the quantization of gravity or should we base them on the unobservable properties of a QED field.

*****

17. Deriving the Probability amplitudes of quantum mechanics in terms of the dynamics of space-time. 

Quantum mechanics uses the probability amplitude derived from the wave function to define where a particle will most likely be found only after it interacts with its external environment. Putting it another way, it tells us a particle's energy will most likely be concentrated where the probability amplitudes of its wave function is greatest yet it tells us nothing about what a particle is or why it appears only when it encounters an external environment.

On the other hand, Relativity tells us the evolution of space-time is the result of electromagnetic waves transferring energy form one particle or object to another or but does not tell us a why the particle called a photon appears when it encounters an object.

However, before we begin, we should define how and why an electromagnetic wave” collapses” to form a particle when interacting with its environment similar to how the wave function “collapses” in a quantum one to form particle.

This can be done by using the science of wave mechanics because it and Relativity tell us electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by being observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave, which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This means a particle would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave.

The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through it therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave.

Putting it in the vernacular of quantum mechanics when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space-time either by being observed or encountering an object it "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

The next step in deriving the probability of determining a particle position in a space-time environment is to look at how each define the position of a particle.

For example, of Quantum Mechanics defines a particle's position as being a one-dimensional point while Relativity defines it in terms of a point which defines its center of mass.

However, because we cannot exactly predict where that one-dimensional point is located with respect to the center of a particle's extended volume in a space-time environment, we cannot determine its exact postilion.

Therefore. because there is an uncertainty or randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's volume one must use probabilities to define its position.

However, the same is true in a quantum environment because we cannot exactly predict where that point is located with respect to the extended mathematical volume defined by the wavefunction. Therefore, due to this randomness or uncertainty one would only be able to define its most probable position.

This suggests one MAY repeat MAY be able to mathematically derive the probabilities of a particle position associated with those of quantum mechanics by using the observable properties of space-time environment as define by Einstein and either maxwell equations or a modified version of them.

The reason why Relativity appears to be deterministic is because those deviations are average out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.*****

18. The CATASTROPHIC THEORETICAL errors in the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about it comes from mathematical formulas and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the Cosmic Background Radiation.

The idea the universe was smaller in the beginning was supported by Edwin Hubble observation in1929 that it was expanding.

Later, a few physicists led by George Gamow a proponent of the Big Bang Model showed an expanding universe meant that it might have had its beginning in singularity or a very hot infinitely dense environment, which then expanded to generate the one we live in today.

They were able to show only radiation emitted approximately 300,000 years after the beginnings of the expansion should be visible today because before that time the universe was so hot that protons and electrons existed only as free ions making the universe opaque to radiation.

Additionally, they predicted this Cosmic Background Radiation would have cooled from several thousand degrees Kelvin back when it was created to 2.7 today due to the expansion of the universe. Many thought its discovery 1965 by Penzias and Wilson provided its verification.

However, there was a problem with assuming the universe begin that way because an infinitely dense environment must have been, by definition homogeneous. Therefore, if the universe was homogeneous when it began it should still be.

But the existence of galactic clusters and the variations in the intensity of the Cosmic Background Radiation discovered by European Space Agency's Planck space observatory showed the universe is not and therefore, was not homogeneous either now or at the time when it was emitted.

Many proponents of the big bang model assume that these "anisotropy" in the universe is caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

However, there are CATASTROPHIC THEORETICAL errors in both assuming our universe originated from a singularity and the affects quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space would have on the evolution of the universe.

Einstein and OBSERVATIONS of black holes tell us time moves slower as the energy density increases and will eventually stop if it becomes great enough. Additionally, Schwarzschild was able to use Einstein's math to calculate the radius of a black hole where the energy density would be great enough to stop time which is LARGER than that of a singularity.

This tells us because expansion CANNOT occur in an environment where time has stopped NOT only because Einstein said so but because OBSERVATIONS of black holes tell us there is a minimum radius the total energy content of the universe can occupy for time to move forward which IS larger than a singularity.

In other words, if the proponents of the big bang model had considered the effect energy density has on time, they would have realized that the universe could not have originated from a singularity.

Some may say that the energy density of expanding universe would not affect the rate at which time passes but they would be WRONG because Einstein's tells us it would be related ONLY to its differential energy density. In other words, he tells us the rate at which time slows and where it would stop and prevent further expansion would be determined by the differential energy density between the center of its expansion and its outer edge. Therefore, similar to a black hole the universe would have an "event horizon" which would define its minimum volume before which no expansion could occur.

However, there is a similar error behind the assumption that quantum fluctuations are responsible for "anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation because their energy density by definition would great enough to cause time to stop. Therefore, quantum fluctuations could not affect the evolution of the universe or be responsible for "anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation because as was just mentioned evolution cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

Some might disagree because they say the energy in a singularity and that contained in a quantum fluctuation would be powerful enough to overcome the stopping of time predicted by Einstein mathematics. However, they would be WONG again because Einstein and observations tells that when the energy density reaches a certain level time will stop. It does not say that an increase beyond that point will allow it to move again.

As was mentioned earlier, current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about its origin comes from theory and mathematical formulas.

However, we may be able to define the origin of the present universe in terms of its observable properties.

We still have not been able to determine if the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or if it will eventually collapse in on itself. However, if one assumes it does, one could develop a mathematically model which would allow for determining when the heat generated by its collapse would it cause it to re-expand. If it was found it was great enough to cause protons and electrons to exist only as free ions before the radiation pressure caused it to enter an expansion phase then another round of the Cosmic Background Radiation would be created.

This would also give one the ability to determine if the anisotropy in it COULD be the result of irregularities in its collapse based on observation of the irregularities that exist today.

Putting it another way we could define the origin of the present universe and anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation in terms of real time observations of the present universe which would be consistent with the theoretical predictions of Einstein.

The science of Astrophysics is base almost exclusively on observations. Therefore, the question we must ask themselves is "If we have two models for the origin of the universe that predict the same outcome which one should we assume is correct?" The one that defines its origins based on the observable properties of our present universe or one that defines it in terms of the unobservable properties of a singularity.

*****

19. Should we allow math to be the only definition of reality

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to mathematically define what we observe but only one can define the reality behind those observations.

History has shown assuming the existence of something based primarily on the quantitative powers of mathematics and not on observations of how an environment evolves can be misleading.

For example, many thought in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of planetary motion which used mathematics of epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets was correct.

It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus's publication of his heliocentric theory and Galileo's observation of the phases of the moons of Jupiter did many European scientists consider the fact that was not.

This is true even though many Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.

However, why did it take almost two thousand years for them to realize their ideas were incorrect?

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of their equipment. However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe the reality of how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem because, at least on earth, objects did NOT follow the curve path associated with epicycles.

However, because they were still able to make accurate mathematical predictions of a planet's position based on their existence, they were able to ignore those observations and suppress the more accurate Greek, Indian and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric or sun center concept of planetary motion could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved on earth.

Unfortunately, I do NOT believe many of today's physicists have learned that lesson.

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a superposition state based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function. However, observations of the environment we live in suggest that in reality particles CANNOT exist in that state.

Yet those same observations of can help us to understand why they MAY NOT.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through it by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at a point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way observations suggest a particle does NOT exist superposition state but is a unique entity with both the properties of a wave and a particle.

The physicist Richard Feynman is credited with saying "The weird thing about Quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it"

However, as was shown above one can explain why a quantum environment is what it is by observing how waves interact with the observable the reality of the environment we all live in instead of the unobservable reality define by the math of the wave function.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to quantify reality NOT a replacement for it.

*****

20. Karl Popper on Falsifiability

One of the distinguishing features of many modern theories of why our universe is what it is are based on the idea that their empirical successes justify the statement of the existence of the unobservable elements.

However, Karl Popper believes there should be another requirement before an idea is considered valuable which is that it also has ability to be empirical falsified.

He presented his argument in his book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” in which he explains how and why only those theories that are testable and falsifiable by observations add value to a scientific community because there is always a possibility future will reveal its falsification.

He believe Theories are a result of creative imagination. Therefore, the growth of scientific knowledge rests on the ability to distinguish the reality of the “real world” from one created by imagination. Therefore, according to Karl Popper only theories, which are testable and falsifiable by observations of the “real world” add to science since they are the only ones distinguishable from an imaginary one.

He defined two different aspects of a theoretical model of "real" world.

The first or as he calls it the “universal statement of laws” apply to the entire universe. These are more commonly called laws of nature. Newton's law of gravity would be an example of a universal statement because it can be applied throughout the universe.

The second or singular statements are defined as ones that apply only to specific events. My car stopped because it ran out of gas is an example of a singular statement because running out gas of applies only to that event.

As mentioned earlier Karl feels the value of a scientific idea should be dependent on the ability of its “statements” to be falsified and not on their ability to be proven. This is because it is possible to logically proceed from one true singular statement to falsity a universal statement even though all other singular statements may verify it.

However, determining which singular statement can result in the downfall of a scientific system is not easy as Karl points out because it is almost always possible to introduce an ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses to successfully integrate a singular statement into almost any scientific system.

Therefore, Karl proposes that we adopt certain rules regarding how we define provability with respect to theoretical statements.

The first is all ad hoc or auxiliary theorem added to a theory to explain a specific observation must not decrease the falsifiability or testability of the theory in question. Putting it another way, its introduction must be regarded as an attempt to develop a new system which if adopted would represent a real advancement in our understanding our observable world.

An example of an acceptable theorem is Pauli's exclusion principal because it increased the precision and the testability of older quantum theories.

An example of an unacceptable one would be the contraction hypotheses proposed by Fitzgerald and Lorentz to explain the experimental findings of Michelson and Morley because it had no falsifiable consequences but only served to restore agreement between theory and experiment. Therefore, it did little to advance our understanding of the “real world”.

However, advancement was achieved by Relativity because it explained and predicted Michelson and Morley's observations along with providing new consequences and testable observable effects thereby opening up new avenues for testing to further our understanding of reality.

Karl also feels the same rules of provability should apply to the universal statement of laws or theories that apply to the entire universe.

For example, he would, as mentioned earlier consider Newton's law of gravity to be of value to the science community because it explained and predicted “real world” observations of planetary motion along with providing new consequences and testable physical effects thereby opening up new avenues for testing and falsification.

However, I believe he would feel that string theories have no scientific value because they hypothesized the universe is composed of one-dimensional strings whose existence is not verifiable by observations of the “real world” because by definition they are too small to be observed. Additionally, the mathematical arguments used to support their existence have no falsifiable consequences because in most cases they can be modified to restore agreement between them and experimental findings. Therefore, there is no way to verify if the mathematical worlds created in the minds of string theorists exist in the real world.

Physics is by definition an observational science. Imagination is a very important component in its advancement, however; it must be tempered with the “reality” of the observable world.

 

J. Black summed it up

‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any

hypothesis agrees with the phenomena.

his will please the imagination,

but does not advance our knowledge.'

*****

21. The Realty behind the wave function and Relativity

One can define reality as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Currently there are two ways science attempts to explain and define the reality of our universe. The first is Quantum mechanics or the branch of physics defines its evolution in terms of the probabilities associated with the wave function. The other is the deterministic environment of Relativity which defines it in terms of a physical interaction between space and time.

Specifically, Relativity would define the observable positions of particles in terms of where the point defining their center of mass is located.

While quantum mechanics uses the mathematical interpretation of the wave function to define the most probable position of a particle when observed.

Since we all live in the same world you would expect the probabilistic approach of quantum mechanics to be compatible with the deterministic one of Einstein. Unfortunately, they define two different worlds which appear to be incompatible. One defines existence in terms of the probabilities while the other defines it in terms of the deterministic of properties of space and time.

However, to show why those probabilities appear to be incompatible with Relativity's determinism even though they are NOT it will be necessary to explain the evolution of quantum environment in terms of a deterministic interaction between the components of a space-time environment.

For example, when we role dice in a casino most of us realize the probability of a six appearing is related to or is caused by its physical interaction with properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. Putting it another way what defines the fact that six appears is NOT the probability of getting one but the interaction of the dice with the table and the casino it occupies.

This suggests to show the “reality” behind the wave function one MUST explain how its environment evolves in terms of how the physical components of space-time interact to define a particles position.

The fact that Relativity defines evolution of space-time in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function give us a starting point. This is because it suggests the evolution in both is defined in define by a wave.

To define the position of a particle in terms of the deterministic properties of Relativity one can use the science of wave mechanics along with the fact Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanic also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to COLLAPSE and be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This means a particle would occupy an extended volume of space defined by the wavelength of its standing wave.

Putting it another way what defines the fact that a particle appears where it does is NOT determined by the probabilities associated with the wave function but a deterministic interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the physical properties of space-time.

(NOTE We will use a particles position to make the connection between the probabilities of Quantum mechanics and the determinism of Relativity but the same logic will apply to all conjugate pairs.)

However, the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is defines its reality because it use a mathematical point to represent a position of a particle which it randomly places with respect to the center of a particle. Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space. This means one must define its position in terms of probabilities to average the deviations that are caused by that random placement.

Yet as was mentioned earlier Reality defines the position of particles in terms of where the point defining their center of mass is located. Therefore, because similar to quantum mechanics Relativity cannot precisely determine where that point is located it would also have to define their exact position in terms of probabilities.

However, the large number of particles in objects such as a moon or planet would result in averaging out the deviation of the position of each their individual particles it appears to be deterministic.

But the same logic would apply to a quantum environment because its probabilistic deviations of a particle's position would average out making the position of large objects such as the mom and planets appear to be deterministic.

This suggests the reason our universe appears indeterminate on a quantum scale while being deterministic on a macroscopic level is because similar to Relativity those deviations would be averaged out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.

As was mentioned earlier one can define reality as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Therefore, as was shown above one can define the Reality of the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics and the deterministic one of Relativity by assuming actual existence of an electromagnetic wave whose evolution can be defined by the notional idea of the wave function.

*****

22. The double slit experiment in space time Apr 1, 2021

    Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics or "OED" realized the significance of Thompson's double slit  experiment because he felt carefully thinking through its implications would allow one to get complete understanding of the wave particle duality of existence predicted by quantum mechanics.

    However, it also allows one to understand the physical connection between them in terms of the space-time universe of Einstein.

    The double slit experiment is made up of a coherent source of photons illuminating a screen after passing through a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as discrete particles, called photons.

    When only one slit is open, the pattern on the screen is a diffraction pattern however, when both slits are open, the pattern is similar but with much more detailed. These facts were elucidated by Thomas Young in a paper entitled "Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics," published in 1803. To a very high degree of success, these results could be explained by the method of Huygens–Fresnel principle that is based on the hypothesis that light consists of waves propagated through some medium. However, discovery of the photoelectric effect made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account.

    It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through, the interference pattern no longer forms and it yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, without interference. However, there ways to determine which slit a photon passed through in which the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out. For instance, by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out.

    However the most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time impacts a barrier with two opened slits because an interference pattern forms which is similar to what it was when multiple photons were impacting the barrier. This is a clear implication the particle called a photon has a wave component, which simultaneously passes through both slits and interferes with itself. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

    As was mentioned earlier, one can understand this experiment in term of the science of wave mechanics and Relatively because they tell us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space and time time unless it is prevented from by moving through space by someone observing or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.        

    Putting it another way if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

    Additionally it tells us it has an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave.

    (Note the boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space  it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through time therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. Putting it another way wave itself defines its boundaries because if it cannot move though space it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.)

    As was mentioned earlier one can use the double slit experiment to demonstrate the physical connection between a quantum environment and the space-time universe of Einstein.

    Briefly it shows the reason why the interference pattern remains when one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open or "the most baffling part of this experiment" is because, as mentioned earlier it is made up of a standing wave therefore it occupies an extended volume which is directly related to its wavelength.

    This means a portion of its energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern.

    However, when its energy is prevented from moving through space by contacting the screen its energy will be will confined to three-dimensional space causing it to be concentrated in a standing wave that as mentioned earlier would define the particle properties of a photon.

    Additionally because the energy of the standing wave which earlier was shown to define a photon is dependent on its frequency the energy of the particle created when it contacts the screen must have the same energy. Therefore, were it appears on the screen will be determined by where the interference of the wave properties from each slit combine to produce enough energy to support the standing wave associated with its particle properties.

    It also explains why the interference pattern disappears, in MOST cases when a detector is added to determine which slit a photon has passed through is because the energy required to measure which one of slits it passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of the one being measured to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit. Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in MOST cases with the energy passing through the other one and no interference pattern will form,

    However it also explains why, as was mentioned earlier "there are ways to determine which slit a photon's energy passed through that will cause a change in the interference pattern but will not completely wiped it out.

    The fact that the interference pattern can still occur even if a measurement is made is because if the energy passing through one of the two slits is altered by a relatively small amount compared to what it originally was, classical wave mechanics tells us it will be able to interact to form a slightly different resonant system with a slightly different interference pattern on the other side than would be the case if no measurement was taken.

    However, this also means one SHOULD be able to use the science of wave mechanics and the physical properties of space-time to quantify the maximum amount of energy a measuring device can remove from the wave while passing through a slit that will permit the interference pattern although somewhat altered to be re-established on the other side. 

    For example, if the above interpretation for the double slit experiment is correct one should be able to CALCULATE THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO CAUSE A SPECIFIC SHIFT IN THE INTERFERENCE PATTERN and determine if it matches the energy taken out of the system by the detecting equipment. In the case of an individual particle, one would have to determine how much energy is required to cause a shift in where in impacts the screen when detected with respect to where it would have if undetected and see if it if that matches the energy required to detect which slit it went through.

    This provides an EXPERIMENTAL WAY of determining if the results of the Thompson's double slit experiment are due to physical properties of space-time or the quantum properties of the wave function because if the pattern disappears above that value and reappears below it would SUGGEST the above explanation is valid. If not it would SUGGEST the quantum mechanical one is.

*****

23. Using Einstein's theories to explain and predict dark matter.

Dark Matter is a form of matter which is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and the remaining is made up visible or baryonic matter. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including the gravitational affects it has on the orbits of stars in galaxies which cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. The reason it is called dark is because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, which is why it is difficult to detect.

However, we DISAGREE that A VAST MAJORITY of it cannot be explained by the currently accepted theories because Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity defined the gravitational potential of an object in terms of the depth of a curvature in the “surface” of space time The more mass the greater the depth of the curvature or gravity “well” it creates. For example, the Sun has a large (or deep) gravity well while asteroids and small moons have much shallower one.

Presently we use the centripetal force of objects orbiting stars and Newton's law of universal gravitation to find their mass. However, as Steven Weinberg pointed out to calculate the total gravitational potential of objects one must also consider that given to it by the electromagnetic energy.

Therefore, those who accept Einstein's theory have no choice but to assume the electromagnetic energy in a star must contribute to the gravitation protentional or depth of its gravity well.

Putting it another way, to calculate total gradational energy or “depth" of the curvature or gravity well in the "surface" of space-time created by a star one MUST NOT only take into consideration the quantity of energy define by E=mc^2 of visible matter but also all other forms of energy in its space-time environment including electromagnetic.

However, if true it should have an observable effect on the centripetal force of objects orbiting stars and Newton's law of universal gravitation which is used to find their mass. The reason it DOES NOT is because electromagnetic energy creates an offset in the gravitation field of a solar system.

One can understand why it does NOT by using an analogy of how an object floating on the surface of water in a well prevents it from sinking to the bottom. How far below its top would represent the gravitational potential of visible matter. While that contributed by its electromagnetic energy would be represented by how far that surface is offset above the bottom. Therefore, the total energy of an object with respect to the bottom of the well would be define by how far it is from the bottom added to how far it is below the top.

Similarly, the total gravitational energy of a star would be defined buy how far below the surface of space-time it is mass is plus the height it is offset m the bottom of its gravity well. This is because we know from observations the radiation pressure caused by electromagnetic energy is the dominant force counteracting gravity to prevent the further collapse of the star. This suggests gravitational component of a star's mass is not at the bottom of its gravity well similar to how an object not at the bottom of a well if it is floating on the surface of the water. However, this means the everything orbiting a star would be floating on the “surface” of space time that correspond to the gravitational potential associated with it mass.

The tells us one the reason we do observe effects of the gravitation potential Einstein associated with electromagnetic energy in object orbiting a star is because the volume of space time they occupy is offset by the same amount as a star's gravitational mass.

This is supported by the observation that when a star's electromagnetic energy is used up it collapses to a black hole which is composed entirely of mass. However, the orbital dynamics of objects trapped in it by gravity remain the same after the collapses. This tells us that the way we define the gravitational potential of a star does not include what is contributed by its electromagnetic energy. However, any object that is not orbiting in a star gravitational field would experience the gravitational effects of both its mass and that of its electromagnetic energy for the same reason that the total energy in a well would be defined by how deep it is.

Therefore, because in health star the gravitational energy of visible matter must be in equilibrium with its electromagnetic energy to keep it from collapsing one MUST assume that each healthy MUST contribute twice the gravitational energy to the universe as the visible matter does.

As was mentioned earlier Steven Weinberg a Noble prize-winning theoretical physics pointed out “Einstein had shown that all energy not just that which was locked up in mass is a source of gravity. Therefore, anyone who one accepts Einstein theory must has NO CHOICE but to accept the fact that each health star MUST contain twice the gravitation potential energy associated with its visible matter.

One reason why the existence of dark matter does not APPEAR to be as prevalent in spherical galaxies as in spiral ones is in part because spherical pattern of their stars orbits results in the offset that earlier created in the surface of space-time become spread out over a much larger circular volume of space than the one created by the stars in a spiral one. This would result in reducing effect of the dept of the gravity well that as was mentioned earlier associated with the visible matter which means the effect it would have on the orbits of star in them to be greatly reduced.

This means according to Einstein the total gravitation potential of the universe must be at least TWICE that contributed by the visible matter of a healthy star. 

The remaining Dark Matter may be contained in black holes or interstellar dust particles. However, the fact we can UNEQUIVOCALLY determine how much of it locked in HEALTHY stars using Einstein's theories WILL help us determine where to look of other sources.

For example, electromagnetic energy not only contributes to the gravitation potential of stars but also to creating it in the interstellar space it is moving through. Granted the energy of one unit of electromagnetic energy may not contribute much but in large enough numbers they would make up a significant portion of dark matter.

It should be remembered; Einstein defined gravity in terms of the ABSOLUTE value of its energy density in a given volume. Therefore, to determine the total gravitational potential of both dark and visible matter one must include all forms of energy in a given volume of to determine its value.

*****

24 Electron diffraction and the downfall of Quantum Mechanics

Currently there are two primary ways science attempts to explain and define the behavior of our universe. The first is Quantum mechanics or the branch of physics which defines its evolution of particles in terms of a mathematical point defined by the wave function. The other is Einstein relativistic one which defines it in terms of an electromagnetic wave.

The mathematics of the wave function which defines the position of a particle in terms of one-dimensional point gives us a complete and very accurate description of were a particle is most probably found. Yet it has not yet been able to define why a quantum system evolves to create a particle in terms of it consisting of one-dimensional point.

However, physics is an observational science whose purpose is NOT only to explain what we observe, like the position of a particle but why we obverse what we do.

Therefore, the creditability of quantum mechanics should not only depend on predicting where a particle is when observed but how quantum system evolves to the point where is it observed.

Yet, the observation that particles such as an electron can be diffracted means one of its fundamental assumptions that a particle can be defined as a one-dimensional point is falsified. This because it is impossible to explain that observation in terms of a point particle that has no volume. Therefore, because one of its fundamental assumptions is observational shown to be incorrect, we have no choice but to look of another way of explaining of why a particle position if observed to be where it is.

One can accomplish this by using the observations provided by the science of wave mechanics and those of space-time environment defined by Einstein's relativistic theories.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the observations of Relativity's relativistic environment tell us wave energy moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. 

Putting it another way if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum theory associates with a particle.

However, it also tells us a particle would occupy an extended volume of space defined by the wavelength of its standing wave which earlier define a particle. This means it can explain observation that particles such as an electron can be diffracted and why energy its quantized in terms an explanation based on the observable properties of our environment while as show earlier Quantum theory cannot.

Additionally, it explains why a particle appears where it does is NOT determined by probabilities as Quantum theory predicts but instead can be explained in term of an interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the physical properties of space-time.

Not only that, it shows the probabilities Quantum Mechanics associates with the position of a particle MAY be the result of the fact it defines them in terms of a mathematical point in space which would be randomly distributed with respect to a center of the standing wave which earlier defined a particle. Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center must be defined in terms of probabilities.

However, classical and relativistic physics also defines the position of an object including a particle in terms of the one-dimensional point called the center of mass. This means they too must use probabilities to account for the deviations that are caused by the random placement of that point due to in part to the randomness of the thermal activity of the individual particles.

The reason why it APPEARS not necessary to use in Relativity is because those deviations are average out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.

As was mentioned earlier, physics is an observational science whose purpose is NOT only to explain what we observe, like the position of a particle but why we obverse what we do. As was shown above we must use the probabilities of quantum theory to define the position of a particle because a particle has volume as is demonstrated by the fact that they can be diffracted. However, we must use Relativistic theory to define why a particle appears where it does when observed or interacts with its environment. Yet neither of the theories, as show above can explain all of their observable properties on the own. Therefore, we need both to completely explain the observable properties of our universe.

*****

25. Defining antimatter in terms of the field properties of space-time.

Antimatter is a material composed of antiparticles and every particle we know of has an antimatter companion that is virtually identical to itself with opposite electric charge. Physics predicts that matter and antimatter must be created in almost equal quantities, and that this would have been the case during the Big Bang. What's more, it is predicted that the laws of physics should be the same if a particle is interchanged with its antiparticle, a relationship known as CP symmetry. However, the universe we see doesn't seem to obey these rules. It is almost entirely made of matter, so where did all the antimatter go? It is one of the biggest mysteries in physics to date.

Therefore, to define ALL the properties of antimatter in terms of the field properties of space-time one must first define how it evolves to produce both particles and antiparticles and then explain why our universe is madeup almost entirely of matter .

Einstein defined the evolution of a space-time environment in terms of an electromagnetic wave moving through its field properties and derived a particle and its mass in terms of a curvature caused by local increase in its energy density. This means to define antiparticles one must first explain how electromagnetic energy evolves in space-time to create a local increase in its energy density and therefore the mass associated with particle creation.

One can accomplish that by using the science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.

Putting it another way this defines how electromagnetic energy evolves in a space-time environment to create a local increase in its energy density and why it is responsible for the creation of particles.

The next step in defining the properties of antimatter is to show why every particle we know of has an antimatter companion that is virtually identical to itself.

One can understand this by using an analogy of how water reacts when an object is either added to or removed from it.

For example, if one depresses an empty cup in water its surface will become elevated to exactly make up for the quantity of water displaced while if someone removes a cup of water its surface will become depressed enough to make up for the water that was removed.

However, because one of the basic principles behind Einstein's General Relativity is that Matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move. Putting it another way mass cause the surface of three-dimension space to move.

Therefore, similar to water if the energy associated with mass causes a portion of "surface" of space to become depressed it will result in a portion of it to become elevated enough to exactly make up for the that energy. While if a portion of the "surface' of space-time elevated by an antiparticle it will result in a portion of it to become depressed enough to exactly make up for that elevation.

Putting it another way this defines why every matter particle has an antimatter companion that is virtually identical to itself and why it must be created in almost equal quantities because it shows why the curvatures associated with their energy density are interdependent and oppositely directed each other.

However, it also provides a solution to one of the BIGGEST mysteries in physics or why the universe is made up almost entirely of matter, even though both observation and prediction suggest that matter and antimatter must be created in almost equal quantities.

This is because it takes a little more energy to lift or elevate cup of water above its surface than it does to depress it below it in part because gravity opposes it being lifting while favoring it being depressed.

Similarly, it would take a little more energy to elevate or lift the "surface" of three-dimensional space than it would to depress it due in part to the fact the gravitational component of matter below that "surface" would oppose the lifting associated with antimatter while favoring the depression associated with matter.

Therefore, some energy associated with matter will be left over after all of the antimatter has been eliminated.

One can also understand why their electrical charge is opposite by comparing it to the energy stored in elastic bands.

For example, if one takes two elastic bands side by side and depress down on one and up on the other a force will be developed that will cause them to be attracted to each other.

Similarly classical physics tells us an attractive force will be developed by the differential energy density that exists between a matter and its antimatter counterpart that will result in a force to be developed that will cause them to be attracted to each other.

This explains why matter and antimatter particle have opposite electric charges or are attracted to each other is because of the effects their energy densities have on the fabric of space-time.

Additionally, one can understand why the spin properties of neutral particles such as a neutron and an antineutron are opposite directed by comparing them to spin properties of high-and-low-pressure areas in our atmosphere. For example, in a high-pressure area air rotates clockwise while in a low one it does so in a opposite direction or counter clockwise.

For the same reason the energy in high energy volume of space-time that defines a neutral particle would rotate in an opposite direction from the low energy volume that defines its antiparticle.

This shows how one can defining the properties of antimatter in terms of the field properties of space-time and why our universe almost entirely made of matter.

*****

26. A possible solution to the problems of Quantum Computing.

There are two ways primary ways Quantum computers are different from conventional ones The first it uses qubits which can exist in a superposition of multiple states to process information instead binary bits of zeros or ones.

For example, in a classical computer two bits can hold one of four values at any time: “00,” “10.” “01,” and “11.” Therefore, at 2 billion operations per second, a standard 64-bit computer would take around 400 years to cycle through all its possible values. Qubits, on the other hand, can hold a zero, a one, or any proportion of both zero and one at the same time. An array of qubits can use superposition to instantly represent all 2^64 possible values at once, allowing a quantum computer to solve problems that are practically impossible for standard computers.

The second is Entanglement which defines the physical relationship between two or more qubits in which one qubit seems to know what happens to another, even when they are a large distance apart. Therefore, Entangled qubits become a system with a single quantum state. If you measure one qubit (i.e., collapse its superposition to a single state), you will have the same impact on the other qubits in the system.

In quantum computers, changing the state of an entangled qubit will change the state of the paired qubit immediately and according to research entanglement is necessary for a quantum algorithm to offer an exponential speed-up over classical computations.

The fact that entanglement exists has been experimental proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

However, one must be careful not to make HASTY assumptions as to why because knowing more about the physical properties of the operating environment of a device can greatly streamline the design of everything from the components in modern computers to the those in a quantum one. In 1935, Einstein

co-authored a paper with Podolsky–Rosen which came to be called the EPR Paradox. Its intent was to show that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature.

He began his argument by assuming that there are two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles), whose wave functions are known. Then, if A and B interact for a short period of time, one can determine the wave function which results after this interaction via the Schrödinger equation or some other Quantum Mechanical equation of state. Now, let us assume that A and B move far apart, so far apart that they can no longer interact in any fashion. In other words, A and B have moved outside of each other's light cones and therefore are spacelike separated.

As was mentioned earlier the FACT that photons are entangled has been proven. However, one must be careful not to extrapolate the unique properties of a photon like the fact that they are the only particle that moves at the speed of light to other ones that might be used to create a qubit.

We believe Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were aware of this SPECIAL PROPERTY of photons because they specified in the introduction to their experiment "two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles)” NOT just photons because they knew that Special Relativity gives us a reason why they would be entangled which were different from those given by quantum mechanics. Einstein told us due to relativistic length contraction the observed distance between the measurement of the end points of from the perspective of objects or particles in motion would be shorter from the perspective of a stationary observer who is measuring how far they are. In other words, from the perspective of particles the faster they are moving relative to the observers the distance between them would be shorter than they measure it to be.  Additionally, his math defining that contraction tells us that distance will be zero for any object or particle moving at the speed of light.

However, he also told us that due to the relativistic properties space and time there is no special reference frame by which one can measure distance. Therefore, one would be justified in measuring the distance between the end points of the observation from the perspective of the photons as well as from the laboratory environment where they are being observed.

\This tells us ALL photons which are moving at the speed of light will be entangled because from their perspective, the distance they have traveled with respect to ALL human observers in the universe no matter where they are MUST be is zero.

As was mentioned earlier the fact that entanglement exists has been experimental proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with respect to a photon.

However, as was show above Einstein Theory of Relativity provides an alternative explanation as to why with respect to photons, which is just a valid as the one provided by quantum mechanics. Since as was mentioned earlier, it is one of the foundational concepts of quantum computing knowing which one of them is responsible will give engineers a better understanding its strengths and limitations and will hopefully allow them to design systems that will take better advantage of them.

HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A QUANTUM COMPUTER CANNOT BE MADE even if entanglement is a relativistic property of universe because the physical properties of all particles such as spin can overlap or be entangled.  This is because the de Broglie wavelength which is one of the fundamental concepts used quantum mechanics defines the wavelength associated with an object in terms of its momentum and mass. This tells us that all qubits in a quantum system occupy an extended region of space associated with that wavelength. This tells us all quantum entities would be entangled or connected if the distance between them is physically less than their de Broglie wavelength. Therefore, any that are physical closer to each other than that should be entangled.

(There is an experimental way to UNAMBIGUOUSLY determine if entanglement is a result of the relativistic or a quantum property of space. This is because if it was found entanglement ceased when the relativistic distance between the end points of an observation, when viewed from the perspective of a particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its De Broglie wavelength, it would have a tendency to verify that conclusion. If not, it would indicate that it is a result of its quantum properties.)

This suggests designers MAY BE more successful in creating a quantum computer if they chose particles with the longest De Broglie wavelength for their Qubits and position them as closely as possible to increase the overlap of their wave properties.

*****

27. Could the energy density of a collapsing universe be responsible for its expansion?    

In 2001 Sir Roger Penrose developed a theory known as “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology” in which he postulated the universe has gone through infinite cycles. He suggested each cycle starts out from a singularity in a Black hole before expanding and generating clumps of matter, which eventually gets sucked up by super massive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation.

But there is another way in which black holes could have contributed to its expansion which is based on General Relativity that does NOT have its origins in a singularity or Hawking radiation but in rapid release of energy in black holes caused by the increasing energy density of a collapsing universe.

Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume that can cause its rapid expansion however we think it is crazier to assume that it began as a one-dimensional point called a singularity as is suggested by both the "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" and the Big Bang.

Cosmologists have not yet determined if the universe will keep on expanding or enter a contraction phase.

However, if it does the enter one its energy density would increase due to its matter and energy being confined to a smaller volume.

This would define a way in which a black hole could have contributed to its expansion based on Einstein definition of gravity as being of the energy density of space because as the universe contacts its energy density would increase. This would result in its event horizon expanding outward due the decrease in the gravitational or energy differential between it and the surrounding space thereby releasing some of its stored energy.

Granted the energy released by the expansion of a single one would have a small effect on the universe. However, the CASCADING release of energy due to the positive feedback loop created by a large number over a short period of time WOULD result in an EXPONENTIAL increase in the temperature and expansion.

The science of thermodynamics defines how the universe's energy density would increase as it collapses. This means one could use observations of our present one to estimate if energy density generated by the momentum of its collapse would become great enough to cause the event horizon of a black hole expand and release its stored energy. Additionally, it would allow one use those same observations to estimate the temperature at which expansion began and the rate at which it took please.

One advantage to this is that it defines a mechanism for the origins of our current universe in terms of its observable properties. This is because, one can, through observations estimate the total energy content and number of the black holes in universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE based on how many presently exist and how many will be created when all of the stars use up their fuel and collapse to one. This would allow one to estimate the rate of its expansion from the beginning based on their numbers and rate at which their energy would have been released by the process outlined above.

However, any cyclic model of our current universe must be able to explain the reoccurrence of the cosmic background radiation which is emitted when ionized electrons and protons first became bound to form electrically neutral hydrogen atoms. This means that the temperature before the expansion began MUST repeat MUST have been high enough to ionize them.

Putting it another way it is not necessary to assume each cycle starts out from the unobservable prosperities of a singularity before expanding as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and the Big Bang assumes because as was show above the laws of thermodynamic tell us it could have begun by an exponential release of energy stored in a large number of black holes which are observable.

To determine if this idea is a creditable, one must FIRST determine if an increase in the gravitational or energy differential between it and the surrounding space would cause the event horizon of a black hole to expand. Using that information one MAY be able to calculate the temperature at which its expansion would have begun and how rapidly it would cascaded though all of the remaining black holes in the universe. Then using that information, one MAT be able to derive the rate of its expansion at the time it began every point in its history based on observations of the present universe.

However, to explain the Cosmic background radiation, the temperature at the time the expansion began MUST have been high enough to ionize MOST if not ALL of the atoms it contained.

Yet if above hypostasis is true it would mean its RATE of expansion would be different and the concentration of the lighter elements in the beginning would be different form that predicted by the currently accepted Big Bang or Sir Roger Penrose Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. However, if it was found that it provides a more accurate accounting of the present concentration of elements in our universe it would have a tendency to support this theoretical model.

Additionally, it provides another way to explain the irregulates in the CBM (Cosmic Background Radiation) in terms of the fact that the size and relative position of each black hole with respect to the center of the expansion at the time it began would affect the overall symmetry of the CBM. This also give the ability to determine if the above hypostasis is valid because we can measure those irregularities and use either math or computer simulations to determine if it is possible the energy released by the size and position of multiple black holes could be responsible for them.

The above model would allow us to define our universe's expansion based on the mathematical analysis or computer simulations based of its observable properties instead of the unobservable properties of a singularity or Hawking radiation as is suggest by the Cyclic Cosmological model defined above..

*****

28. Einstein's block universe fact or fiction.

According to Einstein we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while assuming the change measured by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH them but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. While many physicists define it in terms of the properties of Einstein's space-time universe.

However, even thorough physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension they also use it to give them a sense of order for change.

As was mentioned earlier Einstein in his Block Universe defined the passage of time in terms of our movement through successive fixed blocks of space-time.

However, this means your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a "block" of it waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

Yet, he provided another way to explain the past, present and future when he derived the casualty change in terms of a dynamic interaction between energy and space. This is because it gives us a way to define how and why change occurs in terms of us moving IN space instead of moving thought static ridged blocks of it.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots "living" on the surface of a balloon. The surface of the balloon will represent the "surface" of three-dimensional space and the environment outside of it will represent the time dimension.

If one pushes down on its surface, it will cause the two dots to move. But if the pressure on the balloon is released the dots would return to their original position. Putting it another way the dynamic interaction of its surface with the pressure or energy applied to it is responsible for the movement of the dots.

However, if one accepts the definition of time given earlier that it is a measure of the sequential ordering of events one would know that it did not travel back in time because the return to its original position is the next event in a sequence of events.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined change in terms of a dynamic interaction between the space and energy. This means, similar to the balloon one can define the time in terms of a dynamic interact between them and NOT in terms of its rigidity.

Putting it another way one can define the changes measured by time in terms of us moving IN a dynamic space/energy environment instead of moving THROUGH rigid blocks of space-time

However, if everyone including physicists accepts the definition given above that time is a measure of when an event occurred in relation to arbitrary reference point attached to the sequence of events one can understand why it is irreversible. This is because when one chooses a reference point to define when an event occurred the time required for the next event in a sequence such as returning to its starting point must be added to it.

Putting it another way the reason time MUST always move forward is because to measure it one must anchor it to when the first event took place and returning to the same place would constitute another event in a sequence of events.

However, it also tells us why the laws of physics are not reversible with respect to time if one uses the beginning of our universe as a reference point for its measurement. In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a dynamic interaction of space and energy as Einstein's theories suggest instead of rigid blocks one can understand why our future is not predetermined and why time MUST always move forward even though the laws of physics tell us it does not have to.

*****

29. Quantum Tunneling in space time

    Quantum tunneling is the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a wavefunction can propagate through a potential barrier that it should not be able to.

    Many believe its ability to do this can only be explained by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.

    However, that MAY NOT be true because it could related how its mathematical properties interact with the physical properties of a space-time environment.

    But before can explain why we must first establish a physical connection between them. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

    This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

    One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and relatively tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it.  . This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

    One of the core principals of quantum mechanics is that the wave function continues to mathematically evolve until it interacts with someone or something. Only then does the quantum system it defines collapses or reduces to the non-mathematical or physical properties of a particle.

    Putting it another way an electromagnetic wave continues to evolve until it is prevented from moving through space and time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

    As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical properties of the wave function. However, as was shown above one can establish a physical connection to a space-time environment if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because if it is prevented from evolving through space by an observation it presents itself as a particle.

    As was also mentioned earlier many believe the ability of a particle to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is higher in energy than the its potential energy can only be explain by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.

    However, one can use the science of wave mechanics to show that MAY NOT be true.

    It and observations of waves tell us when the crests of two waves collide will produce a wave whose amplitude is greater. This means if crests of the standing wave responsible for a particle mentioned above collide, they MAY produce a wave whose amplitude would be large enough to go over a potential energy barrier that is higher than that associated with the original wave.

    One could validate this conclusion because if true one should be able to use the science of wave mechanics to define how many the times in a given time period a crest would occur that would be large enough to overcome the potential energy barrier in front of it. If that value matches the probability, one occurs based on the wave function it would support that assumption.

******

30. A classical reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus of an atom

   Quantum mechanics assumes the quantization of energy is what prevents electrons from falling into the nucleus of atoms. However, Classical Wave Mechanics provides another explanation base on the observation that a system which is oscillating at its natural resonant frequency is one the most efficient ways to store and transfer energy between different storage modes. This combined with the law conservation of energy which tells us it can neither be created or destroyed suggests the reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus MAY BE because the most efficient way to store their energy is in resonate systems.

One of the core principals of quantum mechanics is that the energy of all electrons is stored in a wave defined by de Broglie's equation dB = h/p.

Therefore, to verify the reason electrons do not fall into the nucleus is the law conservation of energy and not the fact that quantum mechanics tell us it is quantized one must first show how a resonate system can be created in the space around the nucleus in terms of the non-quantized properties of a wave.

Science of wave mechanics tells us the wave energy associated with an electron would move continuously in the space around the nucleus it is bound to. However, as mentioned earlier a system which is oscillating at its natural or harmonic of its resonant wavelength is one the most efficient ways to store energy. Therefore, the most efficient way to store it would be in a wave moving in a path where the circumference is equal to the wavelength or a harmonic of it's resonate system.

However, observations and the science of wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

This tell us the energy of the electrons orbiting an atom MAY NOT be quantized just because quantum mechanics say they are but because the most efficient way to store their energy is in a quantized resonant system.

As was mentioned earlier energy can neither be created or destroyed therefore an electron's energy could NEVER repeat NEVER disappear by falling into a nucleus and therefore it MUST repeat MUST be stored someplace.

Yet as was also mentioned earlier classical wave mechanics tells us the most efficient way to store energy is in resonant system such as the standing wave. This tells us the energy in each level would most likely be stored in a volume that had the circumference of wavelength associated the energy of the fundamental or a harmonic of its resonant frequency.

This means if an electromagnetic wave interacted with an atom, it COULD ONLY do so by exchanging energy the quantized units equivalent to the energy difference between the resonant standing wave around the nucleus.

(Some have suggested energy would not be conserve because due to the circular nature of an electron's orbit it would experience acceleration and would therefore radiate energy. Hence the need for QM as stated by Neil Bohr. However, as was mentioned above the space occupied by the atomic orbital does NOT contained in a particle but in resonate standing wave on one of the two dimensional "surfaces" surrounding of the nucleus. This means because that energy is NOT contained in a particle but a wave bound edto the nucleus it would not be radiated and therefore WOULD be conserved.)

Both quantum mechanics and as was shown above classical wave mechanics gives valid reasons why electrons do not fall in the nucleus. Quantum mechanics assumes they do not because their energy is quantized based ONLY on the assumption it is quantized. However, as was show above classical wave mechanics and law of conservation of energy gives another reason which are just as valid in terms of the observable properties standing waves and the fact that energy has NEVER been observed to be either created or destroyed. 

Physics is a science based on observation. Therefore, if two ideas give the same result one should give more creditability to the one which can be verified observationally instead of one that cannot.

*****

31. Quantum superpositioning explained in terms of space time.

Classical physics assumes that things cannot simultaneously exist in two different states at the same time.

Not so in Quantum Physics because it assumes it is made up of particles and waves which assumes are superpositioned or simultaneously exist as a strange combination of both.

However, to explain superpositioning in terms of space-time one must show how and why their wave and particle properties become intertwined in in that environment.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and relativity tell us energy waves move continuously through space-time unless they are prevented from moving through space by being observed or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined in three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement would result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This explains the quantized or particle properties of a quantum existence in terms of the physical properties of the space time universe define by Einstein.

However, this suggests the superpositioning of the particle and wave component is a dynamic interaction of space and energy because as was shown above when energy wave is prevented from moving through space it becomes confined in standing wave that earlier defined a particle. Therefore, their simultaneous existence can be understood in terms of a classical interaction between them and not as strange combination of both.

*****

32. Why the arrow of time is irreversible.

    According to some physicists we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH but IN them.

    But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

    Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

    Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon.

    One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

    This indicates a unit of time may be measure of sequential ordering of change similar to how a unit of length is measure of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located.

    However, Einstein defined the energy required for a change in space in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time.

    For example, he defined the change caused by gravity NOT in terms of their rigidity but in terms of a dynamic interaction between them 

    But in his block universe he did not define change in those terms because according to it each block, with a different spatial configuration already exists and what we perceive as change or the passage of time is caused by our movement THROUGH them.

    However, this suggests your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

    This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

    However, Einstein provided another interpretation for the changes the human consciousness associates with time when he as was mentioned earlier defined gravity in a space-time environment in terms of a dynamic interaction between them. This is because it gives us a physical mechanism for defining the ordering of change.

    One can understand why by using an example of two dots "living" on the surface of a balloon. The "surface" of the balloon will represent the "surface" of three-dimensional space and the three-dimensional space outside of it will represent the time dimension in Einstein theories.

    For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots. The change in its surface would be define not only by the distance it move but by the direction.

    As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined gravity in terms of the dynamic interaction between the space and time dimension. For example, the energy of a rocket will change the configuration of the "surface" of three-dimensional space with respect to the time dimension. This means, similar to the balloon one can define that change NOT in terms of the rigidity of space time but in terms of its dynamic properties.

    If true as was also mentioned earlier change is a result of a dynamic interaction between space and time it means the future is the result of an interaction of the past with the present and the decisions we make can and do affect the future.

    However, another advantage of assuming that is it is that gives us a way to define why human consciousness perceives it to be irreversible in terms of its spatial properties.

    For example, if we removed the pressure on the balloon the two dots would return to their original position. However, that removal causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from were when it was applied. Yet even though their positions are indistinguishable from their original ones the dots "living" on its surface would know they had not moved backwards in time because they can observe the sequential ordering of the changes that brought them there. In other words, it would tell them they had not moved backwards in time even though they occupied same points in space.

    Putting it another way the sense of order that tells the human consciousness time always moves forward is a result of the fact that consciousness also gives them the ability to observe the order of the spatial changes take place in our environment.

    However, assuming it is a measure of the sequential ordering of change ALSO tells us why the laws of physics are NOT reversible with respect to it even though they appear to be. This is because as was mentioned earlier if it is measured from an arbitrary reference point in space the change caused by their reversal will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS create a new event (with respect to that point) in the sequence of events that returned it to its original configuration.

    Therefore, if one accepts time as being a measure of the sequent ordering of a spatial of change in an environment the future or forward movement of it can NEVER repeat NEVER be reversed.

       In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a flexible ball of space-time as Einstein's definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why we feel time always moves forward even though the laws of physics it MAY not.

*****

33. Solving the cosmologic constant problem in terms of the dynamics of space time.

The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the observed value of the vacuum energy density or the small value of the cosmological constant and the theoretical large value of it suggested by quantum field theory.

Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude.

In quantum physics, the vacuum or zero-point energy is the amount of energy in a point "volume" of space as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. Its existence is derived from that principle which tells us the mathematical point in space quantum mechanics uses to define particles have an inherent fuzziness. Therefore, it is assumed that it oscillates or fluctuate around that point.

One reason for the cosmological constant problem MAY be because Quantum Mechanics states that all fields, such as the electromagnetic one, must be quantized at each and every point in space. It also assumes the evolution of the oscillations associated with the uncertainty principle are defined by wavefunction. Therefore, according to theory, even a pure vacuum has a VERY, VERY, VERY large number of point oscillators each contributing to its energy.

However, this would be true if and ONLY if all fields including an electromagnetic one is quantized at each and every point in space.

BUT THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

For example, Johannes Kepler was able mathematically define the laws of planetary motion in terms of a HYPOTHETICAL point called the center of gravity which defines the evolution of their orbits. This is because in physics, the center of mass is the unique point where the energy of the distributed mass sums to zero.

However, we know a planet has a volume bigger than the unique point which defines its center of gravity,

Similarly, the point in space that quantum mechanics uses to define the evolution of quantum system may ONLY be a hypothetical one which defines the UNIQUE point where its energy distribution of that system sums to zero.

This conclusion is supported by the fact the fact particles such as an electron can be diffracted because it is impossible to explain that if was a mathematical point that has no volume.

However, to understand zero-point energy and why the cosmological constant predicted by quantum mechanics is so high in terms of dynamics of space-time we must first establish a connection between evolution of the wave function which defines a quantum environment and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity evolution of space-time environment is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was just mentioned the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

This commonality allows one to connect them because the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" confining the movement of both an electromagnetic wave will result in it being reflected back on itself thereby resulting in the creation of a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. Additionally, it tells us its energy can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency of that standing wave while at the same time. Additionally, it tells us the particle defined by the wave function would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength of its standing wave.

Putting it another way if an electromagnetic wave or the wave function is prevented from moving through space either by being observed or encountering an object it will be reduced or "Collapse" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

However, as was mentioned earlier the fact that a particle has an EXTENDED volume suggests the point the wave function uses to defines its evolution MAY ONLY be a hypothetical one which defines where its energy distribution sums to zero similar to how the point called the center of gravity can be used to define the evolution of a planets position.

Therefore, to understand the vacuum catastrophe one must show how and why a one- dimension point would NOT define the vacuum energy in quantum system.

As was shown above Relativity and the science of wave mechanics tell us the energy of the standing wave would be distributed over a volume of space-time that corresponds to is wavelength.  However, as was also shown earlier the mathematical point quantum mechanics uses to define a particle position MAY only represent where energy of distribution of that standing wave sums to zero.

This suggests, to define the vacuum energy of a quantum system and the Cosmological Constant one would have to derive it NOT by applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principal to all mathematical points in space but to the extended volume of space that point represents.

There is a way to determine the validity this above idea.

For example, we can determine the cross section and therefore the volume of a particle by the wave length of the standing wave component which earlier define a particle in space-time. Then using that value one can determine how many oscillators would occupy a given volume of space and apply the uncertainty principal to them instead of every mathematical point it contains to calculate the how much vacuum energy they would create. Then compare that value with the observed one.

Hopefully this may greatly reduce or eliminate the disagreement between the observed value of vacuum energy density and the one suggested by quantum field theory because it would reduce the number of oscillators in a volume of space occupied by a particle.

*****

34. Should allow math to define our understanding of the universe or have it defined our math.

All of our modern sciences take their names from ancient Greek. In the case of physics, that word is “physik” which translates to “knowledge of nature and is dedicated to understanding how and why "our world" behaves the way it does.

Proponents of this definition like Einstein focused on developing the mathematics of General Relativity which not only mathematically quantified how gravity works in terms of a curvature in space-time but also allows the understanding why it does based on how objects move along a curvature surface in our observable universe.

However, there is another definition of physics that assumes it should ONLY have to quantify what we observe.

Proponents of this definition have developed a system of mathematics called quantum mechanics based on the mathematic of wave function which ONLY quantifies it but does not give a way to understand it in terms of observations.

However, we believe the ancient Greeks MAY not have felt comfortable in calling Quantum mechanics a valid physic theory because as Bohr its founder said “ If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not (or cannot) understand it.” in terms of observations of the universe

Even so there are some proponents of quantum mechanics who have suggested that because, to this date its system of math is only one that can accurately define the quantization of "our world" it MUST be product of that mathematical structure.

But the math of quantum mechanics may not be the only way to define why we observe the universe to behave the way it does.

For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table by assuming that originally there were two on the it and two were added or there were six and two were taken away but only one of those equations define how and why they actually got there.

Putting it another way there are in most cases many ways to quantify both the number of apples on a table and what we observe in "our world".

This suggests there MAY be able to find another mathematical system other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics that can define why the energy is quantize base on an understanding of its behavior in the universe.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through it by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to COLLASPE or be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

This not only explains one of the core principals of quantum theory that the wave function COLLASPES only when it is observed but gives a way to understand why in terms of the observable properties of our universe.

As was mentioned earlier there are in most cases there many ways to mathematically quantify what we observe in the universe. Therefore, we should not assume the solutions provided by quantum mechanics are the only ones that will make accurate predictions of its behavior.

What we as physicists and mathematicians MUST decide is should we allow math to define our understanding of existence or have it define our math because it is possible a new system of math based on the behavior of "our world" could open doors to new technologies that will enable our civilization to advance beyond were one based on quantum mechanics can.

*****

35. A bridge between quantum mechanics and relativity

Quantum mechanics assumes the mathematical evolution of the wave function is responsible for quantization of ALL mass and energy. Additionally, it assumes it exists in a superposition of several eigenstates and only reduces or COLLAPSES to a particle when it interacts with the external world. However, it has not been able to define how gravity is quantized in the same terms.

While Einstein defined gravity in terms of how energy density of space effects the geometry of space-time.

THEREFORE, A BRIDGE COULD BE PROVIDED BETWEEN QUANTUM MECHANICS AND GRAVITY IF ONE CAN SHOW HOW AND WHY ENERGY DENSITY OF SPACE IS CONCENTRATED IN QUANTIZED UNITS OF SPACE-TIME IN TERMS OF ITS GEOMETRY.

But before we can begin, we need to establish a connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function, its collapse and the derivation of gravity provided by Einstein. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is the result of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the wave function represent hows a Quantum environment evolves to a particle.

This commonality suggests the wave function maybe represented by an electromagnetic wave in space-time. This means to derive the reason for its collapse in terms of space-time one must physically connect its evolution to it.

This can be done by using the science of wave mechanics and the fact that an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space unless it is prevented from doing so by its interacting with an observer or object. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to COLLSASE and be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found thereby increase the energy density where it is found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle. Putting it another way one can explain how and why the wave function reduces or COLLAPSES to a quantized unit of energy called particle when it interacts with the external world if one assumes it is mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space it will be reflected back on itself. However, that reflected wave still cannot move through it therefore it will be reflected back creating a standing wave. The wave itself defines its boundaries because if it cannot move though time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave called a particle Putting it another way a particle is a wave that is moving ONLY IN time and NOT THROUGH time and space.

In other words, if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

As was mentioned earlier Einstein defined gravity in terms of how the energy density of space effects the geometry of space-time.

Therefore, one can define quantum gravity in terms relativity by using it as was done above to derive how energy density of space and therefore gravity is quantized by a standing wave in space-time.

This provides a bridge between quantum mechanics and relativity in terms of how it can be used to derive a quantized unit of gravity in terms of the energy density associates with a resonate structure made up of an electromagnetic wave which earlier defined a particle.

*****

36. Why finding a Theory of Everything is so difficult.35. Why finding a Theory of Everything is so difficult.

(Please visit https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm if you are interested in saving this to an HTML file or emailing a link to it and 36 others on related subjects.)

The definition of a Theory of Everything is that it should completely define the physical properties of OUR universe. However, before we begin, we should first determine how we what to do that. In other words, do we want find a universal equation to quantify what we observe or explain why we observe it or BOTH.

For example, quantum mechanics ONLY quantifies observations of environment it defines in terms of the mathematically properties of a wave function. It was developed by using the numerical value of observations to define the wave function that predicts those values.

Einstein took a different approach when developing Relativity.  He first sought to understand and explain how and why the speed of light is constant despite the relative motion of an observer in terms of how things in OUR universe would interact if that were true. He then developed the math to quantify his explanation.

Both of these theories can be part of a theory of everything however that is only possible if they both define the universe we occupy.

For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table in a room before the light are turn on by assuming that originally there were 2 on it and 2 were added or there were 6 and 2 were taken away.

However, there is no way using math alone to determine how many apples existed before they were observed on the table. Putting it another way one CANNOT use only mathematical solutions confirm the assumption they are based on.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics ONLY quantifies observations of environment it defines in terms of the mathematically properties of a wave function. This means it may define a universe that we do not live even though it can accurately quantify it. This is because, as with the apples a mathematical solution cannot confirm its assumption the wavefunction defines our universe.

However, if one does as Einstein did first try to explain how and why we observed what we do in terms of how things to interact in OUR observable environment and then derive the math to predict and quantify what we observe then the solutions it defines are more apt to be define the universe we are a part.

This suggests if one takes approach the Einstein did in developing Relativity and apply it to the fact that energy is quantized one may be able to derive a Theory of Everything in OUR universe that not only quantifies observations of our environment but also explain how and why they do.

For example, in "OUR universe" observations, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through space by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to specific volume of three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way one does not have to assume that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the only reason why energy in "OUR universe" is observed to be quantized. This is because as was shown above one cannot only quantify it but explain why using the observable properties of our environment.

However, this suggests we may be able to find a Theory of Everything if, we not only attempt to mathematically quantize what we observe but attempt to understand and explain why we observe it based on how the components of our observable environment interact.

*****

37 Reality is what it is not what can be.

All proponents of quantum theory believe objective reality does not exist because they assume only the mathematical one defined by the wavefunction does. However, if objective reality does not exist how can any. For example, Planck constant one of the foundations of the “reality” that defines a quantum environed was determined by observing the heat radiation given off by vibrating atoms. However, if the OBJECTIVE REALITY of heat radiation did not exist, he would not have been able to define his constant. One cannot say that one does not exist based solely on a mathematical definition such as Quantum mechanics does if that math is based on it. This is because math allows for defining one in terms what it is not.

For example, if you were asked to predict why we observed two apples on a table in a dark room you could say that there are four apples and two were taken away or there were 6 and four were removed. However, both give a correct prediction of what we observe however only one correctly defines its reality. One way to determine which one does would be to observe their environment. Granted we may not be able to so in the dark but we could determine the average weight of an apple by weighing and counting the number in a bushel of them and use that information to determine how many of them were present before two were removed.

There little doubt that quantum mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions and that the reality it defines is incomparable with the classical one we can observe. As was mentioned earlier one way to distinguish which one is correct is to observe its environment which is what Planck did when he observed the heat radiation given off by vibrating atoms. This suggests even though we may never be able to observe a quantum environment we can observe the mechanisms that interact to create objective reality. This MAY repeat MAY to allow us to separate the reality of a mathematical prediction from a non-reality. For example, if we can define a mechanism based on observations of a classical environment for the quantum one or define a reason for the observable properties of classical environment in terms of math of quantum mechanics, we MAY repeat MAY be able to determine which one defines it. However, we should ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS remember that one should NOT accept or define a reality based ONLY on the fact that mathematics tells us it exists.

In other words, reality is what it is not what mathematics says it can be

*****

38.Why our universe is asymmetric with respect to time but not the laws of physics

(Please visit https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm if you are interested in reviewing 38 others postings on related subjects.)

Einstein gave us the following reasons why time is asymmetric and why it is not for the laws of physics when he defined the energy required for change in terms of an interaction between space and time.

But before we can WHY we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. Many physicists also define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

However, Einstein provided an explanation for the changes the human consciousness associates with the sequential order of change when he defined energy in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time. This is because it gives us a physical mechanism for defining why change occurs.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots "living" on the surface of a balloon. The "surface" of the balloon will represent the "surface" of three-dimensional space and the three-dimensional space outside of it will represent the time dimension in Einstein theories.

For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots. The change in its surface would be define not only by the distance it moves but by the direction.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined energy in terms of the dynamic interaction between the space and time dimension. For example, the energy of a rocket will change the configuration of the "surface" of three-dimensional space with respect to the time dimension. This means, similar to the balloon one can define change NOT in terms of the rigidity of space time but in terms of its dynamic properties.

However, this gives us a way to define why human consciousness perceives it to be asymmetric in terms of the properties of a space-time environment.

For example, if we removed the pressure on the balloon mentioned earlier the two dots would return to their original position. However, that removal causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from where it was when it was applied. Yet even though their positions are symmetric or indistinguishable from their original ones the dots "living" on its surface would know they had not moved backwards in time because they can observe the sequential ordering of the changes that brought them there. In other words, it would tell them they had not moved backwards in time even though the components occupied same points in space.

Putting it another way the sense of order that time tells the human consciousness time asymmetrical is a result of the fact that consciousness also gives them the ability to observe the order of a spatial change take place in our environment.

However, that ALSO tells us why the laws of physics are, even though they are in most cases symmetrical respect to SPACE they are NOT repeat NOT are with respect to TIME. This is because as was mentioned earlier most of the laws of physics only provide an instantaneous “snap shot” of configuration of space-time. Therefore, similar to the two dots on the balloon the law of physics symmetrical because they can reverse the spatial configuration of space time in a way that is indistinguishable from a previous one and not reference to a point in past.

Therefore, if one accepts time as being a measure of the sequent ordering of a spatial of change in an environment the future or forward movement of it can NEVER repeat NEVER be reversed.

In other words, because Einstein's definition of energy suggests the flexible of space-time one can use his theory to understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why we feel time it is asymmetric and always is moves forward even though the laws of physics MAY not.

*****