These are copies of Facebook postings made by Jeffrey O'Callaghan

https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm

Please 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 all based EXCLUSIVELY on interoperations of Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

Relativity

Quantum mechanics

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

2.Why a singularity cannot not exist exist in a black hole.

4. Einstein's explanation of mass and why it is resistant to a change in motion.

10. Why a photon CANNOT move at the speed of light

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

12. Why Gravitational time dilation IS responsible for Dark Energy

13. Understanding both the field and particle or photonic properties of an electromagnetic wave in terms of space-time

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

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory.

19. Mathematics verses observations

20. Karl Popper

22. Finally an experiment that WILL unambiguously determine if quantum mechanics or Relativity rules the universe.

23. What is Dark Matter? A simple answer Einstein would have liked.

27. Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe's history

28. The block universe fact or fiction

3. Merging the collapse of the wave function with Einstein Theories of Relativity.

5. Quantum entanglement as defined by Einstein.

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

7. How should we define reality? 

8. Why the graviton MIGHT not exist

9. Is it possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic space-time universe of Relativity?

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

16. Deriving gravity in terms of QED

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

20. Karl Popper

21. Deriving the Realty of the wave function

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

 

 

 

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

2.Why a singularity cannot not exist exist in a black hole.

3. Merging the collapse of the wave function with Einstein Theories of Relativity.

4. Einstein's explanation of mass and why it is resistant to a change in motion.

5. Quantum entanglement as defined by Einstein.

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

7. How should we define reality? 

8. Why the graviton MIGHT not exist

9. Is it possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic space-time universe of Relativity?

10. Why a photon CANNOT move at the speed of light

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

12. Gravitational time dilation IS responsible for Dark Energy

13. Understanding both the field and particle or photonic properties of an electromagnetic wave in terms of space-time

14. Why the future is what it is.

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

16. Deriving gravity in terms of QED

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

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory.

19. Mathematics verses observations

20. Karl Popper

21. Deriving the Realty of the wave function

22. Finally an experiment that WILL unambiguously determine if quantum mechanics or Relativity rules the universe.

23. What is Dark Matter? A simple answer Einstein would have liked.

26. A possible solution to the problems of Quantum Computing

27. Could Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe's history?

28. The block universe fact or fiction

 

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 objects and matter must also stop at that point. Therefore it can not 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. This means it must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to the one defined by the radius of it event horizon. 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 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 physics are not violated in black hole with respect to all riding on the surface of a star because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein's concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces the collapse of matter must stop at the critical circumference.

*****

2. Why a singularity cannot exist exist in a black hole.

In the 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 and energy as it falls into a black hole in terms of inertial reference frames. However, we did not attempt to define what happens after that. The reason was because we must use Einstein's mathematical definitions of the curvature in the geodesics that define how mass and energy move in a space-time environment to do so.  They tells us that it would take an infinite amount of time for mass and energy to form singularity after passing through the event horizon of a black hole for the same reason we that observe it to take an infinite amount of time to reach it from the outside.

This is because as mass or energy is added to it the curvature defining its gravitational geodesic that defines it event horizon expands adding another layer to it. However that does not mean that the matter or energy that is under that layer is free to move towards its center because the gravitational curvature in the geodesic that defines it movement is still there but at a lower gravitational potential. This means any matter or energy that exits at a layer under the event horizon could NOT move towards its center to form a singularity but can only move around the circular geodesic generated by the gravitational potential at that level. However, Einstein's math tells us would take infinite amount of time to cross to a lower gravitational level. This is similar to the observations involving how matter and energy that tell us it take an infinite amount of time for it move through an event horizon from outside of black hole.

This tells us that either we have misinterpreted the math that tells us a singular can exist at the center of a black hole or we must rewrite them based on the observations of how mass and energy interact with the event horizon of a black hole. We do not believe we have any other options base on those observations.

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. We also know that a neutron star is capable of becoming a black hole if it absorbs enough mass and energy to become a one. However, that does not mean that it collapses to a singularity. For example the total energy and therefore the total gravitational potential of the volume of space our solar system occupies consists of the mass and energy of the sun and the planets which are orbiting it. This observation suggests that the total mass in the volume of space occupied by a black hole maybe made up of the components of neutron star and the mass that as was show above would be orbiting it on the gravitational geodesic created by it. These observations of our solar system suggest that the central core of a black hole is NOT a singularity but the remnants of neutron star whose gravitational potential has increased enough by the mass and energy that is orbiting in the gravitational geodesic of its event horizon.

*****

3. Merging the collapse of the wave function with Einstein Theories of Relativity.

The physicist John Wheeler once asked how can one can best describe the reality of quantum mechanics in five words or fewer? he determined the best answer was given by Aatish Bhatia “Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.”  He felt that describes it in "Nutshell" because the wavefunction maintains its mathematical properties until it is observed or interacted with and only after that does it transform or in quantum speak "COLLAPSE" to the physical reality of a particle.  

Aatish definition of quantum mechanics demonstrates one of the difficulties in merging quantum mechanics with Einstein's Relativistic Theories is explaining how and why the act of observing or interacting with the mathematical properties of a quantum environment it to "COLLAPSES" in the form of a particle.

Therefore, one requirement for merging it with Relativity would be to explain how and why observing it transforms its mathematical properties to a physical one of a particle.

One way of doing this is to use the fact that both their evolutions are controlled by a wave. For example, Relativity defines it in terms of the energy propagated by electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.

This suggests the wave function that governs the evolution of a quantum environment may be mathematical representation of the electromagnetic wave that governs the creation of particles in the universe of Relativity. This means we may be able understand the "COLLAPSE" of the wave function and why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles describe quantum reality by looking at how an electromagnetic wave evolves in the space-time environment of Relativity

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relatively tells us wave energy would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 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.

The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time 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. 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.

In other words, this shows one can use the established science of wave mechanics and physical world of Relativity to show why when some looks at a quantum existence it appears as a particle because that act creates boundaries required to create the resonant system which defines one.

This also shows how one can explain the COLLAPSE of the wave function and why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" describes the quantum world in terms of the evolution of electromagnetic wave in the space-time environment of Relativity.

*****

4. Einstein's explanation of mass and why it is resistance to a change in motion.

Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.

Physicists who are proponents of the Standard Model realized in order for it to agree with observations it was necessary to imagine a new field called the Higgs which must exist everywhere in the universe to explain what mass is and its resistance to acceleration. However, shoring up existing theories by inventing new theoretical components to the universe is dangerous, and in the past led physicists to hypothesize a universal aether but the more math they did, the more they realized that the Higgs field simply had to be real. The only problem? By the very way they’d defined it, the Higgs field would be virtually impossible to observe.

However, if they had spent the time to analyze the conceptual foundations of Einstein, they would have realized that he had already explained mass and its resistance to motion in terms of his math and observations.

He was able to explained the physicality of mass in terms of an increase in the energy density of space while defining its resistance to a change in motion terms of it occupying a "flat" region in space-time.  This is because he showed us the increase in the energy density caused by mass results in the "surface" of space-time to be curved. Therefore, one can assume a mass moving at a constant velocity MUST be moving through "flat" region of it whose energy level is constant because if it was not, it would be accelerated.

Yet this also allows one to define relative motion in terms of the different energy levels they occupy in space-time.  For example, Einstein's equation E=mc^2 that defines the equivalence between mass and energy tells us the magnitude of them would be directly related to mass.  In other words, a large mass that is not in relative motion with respect to smaller one would occupy a higher energy level.

However, if they were in relative motion one would have to add the energy associated with its motion to determine their relative energy levels.  Putting it another, way the difference between the energy levels of two objects in motion would not only be related to their mass but also to their relative velocities. Therefore, according to Einstein relative motion occurs when the difference between their energy levels in space-time exceeds what is associated with their masses.  Additionally, it tells us to change motion of mass one must also change its energy level.

(The reason all motion is relative is because as was just shown Einstein defined it only in terms of the difference in the energy level between masses in space-time.)

This conclusion is supported by the fact that Einstein derived the force of gravity in terms of a change in the energy levels occupied by a mass as it moves along a curvature in the "surface" of space-time.

This provides an explanation of the resistance, force, or energy required to change the motion of a mass that is consistent with Einstein definition of gravity because as was mentioned earlier the change in motion or acceleration of objects in a gravitational field is a result of them moving through different energy level in space-time. This suggests the resistance or force required to overcome the resistance or a change in motion of a mass is a result of the energy required to change the energy level it is occupying in space time. 

This means that one may not have to as some have suggested "invent new theoretical components" to define mass and its resistance a change in its state of motion because as was shown above Einstein equation E=mc^2 defines its physicality in terms of the energy density of space-time while he showed that one can derive its resistance to a change in motion in terms of the force required to change the energy level it occupies in space-time.

*****

5.  Quantum entanglement as define by Einstein

Presently, there is disconnect between our understanding of one of the most mysterious facets of quantum mechanics quantum, 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 stated 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 particles are entangled 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 entangled objects 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 effect 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.

In quantum physics, it is assumed entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The rules of  Quantum physics also state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.

One of the experiments that many assume verifies that entanglement is a quantum phenomenon uses (This description was obtained from the Live Science web site) 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 observational points in a laboratory, can also be defined from the perspective of the photons in the above experiment.

Yet, this tell us (Please see attached graphic) that the separation between the observation points in a laboratory from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light 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 the observers as moving at the velocity 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 determining 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 photon which are.

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 were they are being observed.

Therefore, all photons no matter how far apart they are from the perspective of a lab will be entangled because Einstein tells due to the fact that they are moving at the speed of light that distance will be Zero from their perspective.

However, he also tells us that for particles moving slower than the speed of light the distance between will be greater than zero and how much more would depend on their the relative speed with respect to the observer. In other words, the faster they are moving with respect to him or her the greater that distance will be shortened.

Therefore, if it was found that only photons experience entanglement when the observation points were separated by large distances it would support the idea that it is caused by the relativistic properties of space defined by Einstein.

However, one must remember the wave particle duality of existence as defined by Quantum mechanics tell us that before a particle is observed it 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 when 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.

Some have suggested that "There are inertial frames for every speed less than light but there is no inertial frame for light speed itself. Any attempt to generate one actually generates a degenerate frame which can cover only an infinitesimal fraction of space-time." However that argument is invalid, because the conceptual foundations and formulas for length contractions associated with relative motion as define by Einstein tells us that the distance between the endpoints of all observations made in a lab will be zero for a photon EVEN though it may be an infinitesimal fraction of space-time. Therefore, the fact that it may define a degenerate frame would be irrelevant to the conclusion draw above because as was shown above it is the distance between the end points of the observation when viewed from all objects in relative motion that determines whether or not it will be entangled.

*****

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

Quantum mechanics states what the universe is made of while not giving an explanation of why it is that way while Relativity gives us an explanation of why it is what it is but does not tell us what is it made of. For example, the quantum world is defined by the mathematical properties of the wave function which defines its interaction with space and time in terms of the evolution of the wave-particle duality of existence and the uncertainty principal which states one cannot precisely measure the properties of Conjugate pairs such as the momentum or position of a particle with complete accuracy. However, it does not give an explanation of what existence is or how it interacts with its environment to create the universe we live in.

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.

Therefore, to understand the dynamics of the uncertainty principle in terms of space-time we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier 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 to derive the uncertainty principle in terms of it one must physically connect it to an electromagnetic wave.

(Einstein defined the medium responsible for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he derived gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it. This is because it shows the alternating physical curvatures caused by peak and valleys of a wave through its geometry can support its movement.)

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 or COLLAPSING 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.

(The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time 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. 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 photon.)

Putting it another way a particle is a wave that is moving ONLY IN time and NOT THROUGH time and space

As was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave functions defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of its wave particle duality. However, as was shown above one can understand why 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.

Yet, it also tells us why, similar to the evolution of an electromagnetic wave if unobserved it will continue evolve through the mathematical universe defined by quantum mechanics.

In other words, it shows how one can understand the evolution of wave-particle duality of a quantum existence by comparing it to the evolution of an electromagnetic wave in space-time

Next, we must explain how quantum mechanics definition of a particle in terms of a one-dimensional point is responsible for the validity of the uncertainty principal.

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 accurately determine its momentum or position one must be able to determine where those measurement are taken with respect to energy volume of the system it occupies.

Yet, to measure momentum of a particle in the quantum world one must determine time it takes to move between two points in the mathematical field with respect to the volume of system being measured. Therefore, they will be an inherent uncertainty if one cannot determine where with respect to it those points are.

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 THE FACT THE MEASUREMENT OF MONUMENT OR POSITION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF INFORMATION OR ENERGY IN A SYSTEM TELL US THE MEASUREMENT OF ONE WILL AFFECT THE OTHER.

Quantum mechanics defines both moment and position 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 is taken out regarding its momentum will result in there will being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less information left in its volume to define its position. 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 volume to define it. This would be true for all Conjugate pairs.

However, the same would be true in a relativistic system because its energy is must be conserved when its position or momentum is measured. Therefore because, the accuracy of a measurement is directly related to the amount to energy taken out of a system; the measurement of each component of a Conjugate pairs will effect 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 understand and physically connect the uncertainty principal as defined by quantum mechanics to the space time environment define by Einstein.

*****

7. How should we define reality? 

This question is especially relevant for the scientists who struggle on daily basis to help us understand the "inner" reality of our universe.

Some define it based on a quantitative mathematical analysis of observations.

For example, Quantum mechanics defines the "reality" or the state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made. However, defining reality in terms of probabilities means that each probabilistic outcome of an event becomes a reality 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 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 reality in terms of deterministic proprieties of cause and effect.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a causal relationship between the 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 earlier movements.

Both the wave function of quantum mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws are valid definitions of reality because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.

However, this does not mean that they accurately define the environment responsibility for those realities.

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 explain why those those laws exist.

However, Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an "alternative reality" that could explain them in terms of a distortion in space-time.  However, it did not alter or change the validity of Newton's gravitational laws when the velocities were small with respect to the speed of light, they are still valid.

This shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could explain Newton's laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum probabilities that would not affect the validity of those predictions.  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 mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines reality in terms of probabilities, which means each probabilistic outcome becomes a reality in the future.  However, it also means one must assume separate realities are created for the possible outcomes of every event.

However, this would not be true if those probabilities can be derived in terms of an interaction between a quantum system and the physical properties of the 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 the roll.  This is because the probability of getting a six is related to or caused by its physical interaction with the properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled.  In other words, what defines the reality 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.

As was mentioned earlier many proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities because it describes the interactions of a quantum system with the universe in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes.  This means there must a separated universe for all possible outcomes of an event.

However, even though the reality that appears when a dice is rolled in a casino can be determined in terms of a probably does not mean all possibilities appear in their own separate casino. This is because as was mentioned earlier the probabilities involved in the roll of dice does not define the reality of the casino but that the casino defines those probabilities.  In other words, the fact that casino define the probability of the role of dice tells us that it will have definite outcome in the casino

Similarly, just because quantum mechanics describes the interactions of a quantum system in terms of probabilities, we should not assume they define the reality of the universe because it is possible the universe defines those probabilities.

This also shows how one defines reality depends on if all you care about is that a six appears on the roll of dice or if you want know why you rolled it.

*****

8. Why the graviton MIGHT not exist.

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 or quantized unit of energy when it interacts with the "external world". 

Therefore, detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak and Therefore, detecting them is extremely difficult.

However, the fact energy waves associated with gravity have been observed suggest it has properties similar to other energy waves, such as electromagnetic with one very important difference: the fact that it does NOT interact with the "external world".  This suggests the reason graviton has NOT been detected MAY NOT be because it is extraordinarily weak but because it does NOT interact with the "external world" so the wave function NEVER collapses.

This is because interaction requires an exchange of energy.  Yet the observations that gravity waves can move unhindered through objects tells us they do not exchange energy with the "external world".

This would be similar to how water waves do not exchange energy with buoy floating on it.  The only time it does exchange it is when it is prevented from moving through the water by either by contacting a wall or the shore.

Similar because observations tells us gravity waves do not exchange energy with objects such as observatories, planets or stars that are "floating" on the "surface" of space-time, its wave function would NOT COLLAPSE to form a particle when it encounters one.

As was mentioned earlier the energy waves associated with gravity and electromagnetism have similar properties except for the fact that they, as was just shown they interact with the "external world" differently.

Therefore, before we can understand why a gravity wave may NOT be quantized while electromagnetic waves are in terms of its interaction with its "external world" we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the wave properties of energy the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of the of energy waves moving thru time while, as was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it interacts with the "external world". 

The fact the evolution of the environments of both space-time and the wave function are defined by waves suggest the it could be a mathematical representation of an energy wave in space time.

Yet if true one should be able to explain why gravity waves WOULD NOT be quantized while electromagnetic would be in terms of their interaction with space and time.

This can be done by using the science of wave mechanics and the fact that an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by its energy interacting with objects in the "external world". This interaction would result in its energy confined to that world. 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.  In other words, it defines why an electromagnetic wave COLLAPSES or is reduced by an interaction with the "external world".

(The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. If an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time 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. Therefore, an electromagnetic 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 photon.)

However, as was mentioned earlier observations have shown gravity waves do not interact or exchange energy with the "external world" composed of objects such as observatories planets or stars.

As was also mentioned earlier, quantum mechanics assumes the wave function reduces to a quantized unit of energy ONLY when it interacts with the "external world".  Therefore, because gravity waves do NOT interact with the "external world" of observatories planet or stars the wave function will not COLLAPSE when they are encountered.  This means according to the rules of quantum mechanics a graviton should NOT be observed when it encounters one.

*****

9. Is it possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic space-time universe of Relativity?

There are two ways science attempts to explain and define the behavior 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 Einstein relativistic one which defines it in terms of the deterministic properties of space and time

Specifically, Einstein determines the position of particles in terms of a physical interaction between them while quantum mechanics uses the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function to define their most probable position 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 properties of space and time.

However, even though those probabilities appears to be incompatible with Relativity's determinism it can be shown that one causes the 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 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.

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

One way of doing this is to use the fact that evolution in both a quantum and space-time environments are defined or controlled by a wave. For example, 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.

This suggests the wave function that governs the 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 the most probable position of a particle in terms of the deterministic properties of an electromagnetic wave in space time.

One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the physical properties of 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 doing so by someone observing or 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 quantum mechanics MUST define all energy in terms of quantized units of space time.

However, it also tells us a particle would occupy an extended volume of space defined by the wavelength of its standing wave.  This is because, as was mentioned earlier if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time it will be reflected back on itself.  However, that reflected wave still cannot move through time therefore it will be reflected back on itself creating a one. Therefore, an electromagnetic 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 photon. 

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

However, the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is necessary because it defines the position of a particle in terms of mathematical point in space which it randomly defines with respect to a 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 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 it is possible to derive the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the determinism of space-time by assuming the wavefunciton is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic in it.

*****

10. Why a photon CANNOT move at the speed of light

Many define a photon as basic unit of an electromagnetic radiation and therefore, they assume it is mass less because if it wasn't Einstein tells us it could not move at the speed of light. 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 used 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 therefore, 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 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.

Therefore, if it were true electromagnetic energy was propagated by a photon Einstein Theory of Relativity would be invalidated, because it is impossible to use it to define how a particle could propagate energy at that speed.

However, if one assumes electromagnetic radiation is propagated by a wave in space-time instead of the particle called a photon one can use the science of wave mechanics to explain how it can in terms of his theory.

This is because the science of wave mechanics tells us waves move energy from one location to another while its components return to their original position.  Putting it another way a wave communicates or transmit energy, without moving units of matter it is made up through the medium it is moving on.  Similarly, a wave in space-time COULD move at the speed of light because it communicates or transmits energy, without moving the units of matter that is made up through space-time (The term unit of space-time referrers to a section that is equal to the distance between the peaks and troughs of a wave in the continuous field properties of space-time.)

However, one can also use the science of wave mechanics to understand why an electromagnetic wave takes on the form of the particle called a photon when it is NOT moving through space time.

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 observing or 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 explains how and why an electromagnetic wave becomes the particle called a photon when it is observed.

This mechanism for the creation of a photon from an electromagnetic wave is consistent with the quantum mechanical observation that the wave properties of energy only reduces or COLLAPSES to a particle or quantized unit of energy when it is observed or interacts with something.

Putting it another way if one assumes that electromagnetic energy is propagated BY wave NOT by a particle one can not only understand how energy can be propagated though space at the speed of light and why when it interacts with the external world opf an observer it appears as a photon in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions of BOTH Quantum Mechanics and Einstein Theory of Relativity.

*****

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

Entanglement provides a VERY SIMPLE 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 central 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. 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 the central core 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 mechanism responsible for entanglement in terms of either one it would invalidate the other will help us to understand why our 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 distance between two objects or points in space is defined by their relative motion and that there is no preferred reference frame by which one can define that distance.

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

Yet, his formula for length contraction (shown below) tells us the separation between those observational points from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light 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 the observers as moving at the velocity 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 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.

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 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 particles that 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 wave with a wavelength defined by λ = h/p to determine if it or Einstein's theories define how the universe works. This is because it tells us all material particles have an extended volume equal to there 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 De Broglie.

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

This means that 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 determine 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 λ = h/p while one can determine, the relative distance between the observation 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 a doable experimental that will UNEQUIVOCALLY tell us if Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's' theories define why the universe is what it is

IT CANNOT GET MUCH SIMPLER THAN THAT.

12. Gravitational time dilation IS responsible for Dark Energy

Recently it has been suggested a force called Dark Energy is needed to account for the observations suggesting the universe's expansion is accelerating. However, there is another reason which is related to effect gravity has on time.

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 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 than it actually was if that were not taken into consideration.

However, we also know the gravitational potential has a slowing effect on the universe's expansion and because that potential decreases as its volume increase, the rate of that slowing also decreases.

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

Yet, because of the non-linear effects between the slowing of time created by universe's differential gravitational potential and the effects it has on its rate of expansion there will be a point in its history where one will APPEAR to overtake the other.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS POSSIBLE THE OBSERVATIONS SUGGESTING ITS EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE EFFECTS ITS GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL HAS ON TIME WHICH WOULD CAUSES IT TO APPEAR MOVE SLOWER IN THE PAST THAN IT ACTUALLY DID.

One could verify this conclusion by using the observation that about 4 billion years ago the universe's expansion appears to have change 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 time would have been slowed due to the differential gravitational potential between the past and present. If it was found that about 4 billion years ago that actual rate of expansion was faster than it is now it would suggest that the its expansion is NOT accelerating

Some may say the slowing of time slowing would not affect its expansion because it is expanding along with the entire universe. However, Einstein define the time dilation only in terms of the affects a differential gravitational potential has on it therefore it would not be affected by its expansion. Some have also suggested that because it is expanding the gravitational potential is expanding and weakening at the same rate therefore when we look back the effects it will have on the timing of its expansion will cancel.   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 take into account the differential gravitational potential between the past and present universe when defining its expansion.

Some have also suggested Relativistic properties gravity has on time already been already been accounted in the Friedman model that was used in part by scientist to define the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, that is NOT the case because when someone in the past measures its rate of expansion he or she would NOT need to use the slowing effects gravity has on time because his entire spatial slice of the universe would be at the same gravitational potential. However, this would NOT be the case for someone looking at it from the future. He would have to use it because due to its expansion a differential gravitational potential would have developed between the past and present. Yet as was mentioned earlier the effects gravity has on time tell us from the perspective of the present its expansion rate would be moving slower than it actually was from the perspective of someone who is present at the time when that expansion was taking place. In other words, since Friedman's equation does not consider the effects the differential gravitational density has on time it would predict it to be slower in the past than it actually was.

*****

13. Understanding both the field and particle or photonic properties of an electromagnetic wave 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 the electromagnetic field is propagated NOT by a wave but the particle called a photon.

While even though Einstein derived gravity in terms of a distortion in space-time he was unable to explain its propagation in the same terms as was documented by the American Institute of Physics

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

Therefore, to show how one can derive the quantum or photonic properties of an Electromagnetic field in terms of the physical properties of space-time one first show how the electric and magnetic fields interact with space and time to create a electromagnetic wave.

As was mentioned earlier Einstein defined gravity in terms of a geometric curvature or depression in space-time whose central axis is static and perpendicular to one of the axes of three-dimensional space. This would be analogous to a depression in a surface of a rubber diaphragm in which would cause objects on it to move towards apex of that depression.

However, the fact the line of action of gravitational force only involves one of the three spatial dimensions does NOT mean the other two cannot contribute to energy content of space.

IT CAN AND WILL BE SHOWN THE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ARE THE RESULT OF OSCILLATIONS MOVING THROUGH TIME ON THE "SURFACE" OF THE TWO SPATIAL DIMENSIONS THAT ARE PERPENDICULAR TO LINE OF ACTION OF GRAVITATION FORCES.

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. This 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 displacement 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 the similar electrical fields of an electromagnetic wave repel each other because observations of waves on water show that 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 in the plane that is perpendicular to the by the passage of the 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.

As was shown above the science of wave mechanics shows one can explain the electric and magnetic field properties of electromagnetic waves by assuming it is moving through time on the two dimensional "surface" of space that it perpendicular to the line of gravitation force.

However, to understand how why 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 in both a quantum and space-time environment are defined or controlled by waves. For example, Relativity defines evolution of space-time in terms of the energy propagated by either an electromagnetic or gravity wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.

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

One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the physical properties of 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 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 the field properties of an wave evolve in quantum environment to create a photon

Putting it another way by assuming light is created by the movement of an energy wave on the two dimensional planes of space that are perpendicular to the line of action of gravity NOT ONLY allows one to explain its electromagnetic field properties but also its particle or photonic ones in terms of the evolution of the geometric properties of Einstein's space-time universe

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 though 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 observed to be polarized.

*****

14. Why the future is what it is.

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

Not so in Quantum Physics. Objects are neither particles nor waves; they are a strange combination of both. Given complete knowledge of the past, we can make only probabilistic predictions of the future.

In other words, classical mechanics tells us only one future exists while quantum mechanics tells us that due to its probabilistic interpretation of wavefunction, many different ones exist simultaneously and which one become a reality is determined by observation. 

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

However, that MAY NOT be the case.

As mentioned earlier, one of the things that separate the future associated with classical physics from probabilistic one of quantum mechanics is one tells us all of the probable future outcomes of an observation exist while the other which based on causality tells us there in 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 a six 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 the predicted futures exist if the probability of a specific outcome is caused by a physical interaction with the universe it occupies.  In other words, like the dice, it is possible the wavefunction does not define the future of the universe the universe defines the future of the wavefunction.

As was mentioned earlier, even though the probabilistic future of quantum mechanics and causal one of Einstein space-time theories appear to incompatible they MAY NOT BE.

However, to understand why one would have to show how the probability of a specific outcome in a quantum environment is related to the interaction of the wavefunction with the properties of space-time.

To begin we must first establish a physical connection between the wavefunction and the space-time universe as define by Einstein.  This can be accomplished because he defined its evolution in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the wavefunction represents how a Quantum environment evolves to create a particle.

This commonality suggests the wavefunction MAY BE a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.  This means to derive the probabilities quantum mechanics associates with a particle's in terms of it one must physically connect its evolution to the mathematical properties of the wavefunction.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relatively tells us energy waves moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 quantum existence in terms of the physical properties of the space time universe define by Einstein.

This means if the wave component of a quantum existence is prevented from moving unhindered through time either by an observation or something interacting with it will create a resonant system or structure that would define a particle in the space-time universe defined by Einstein

However, it also tells us a particle would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave because if electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through time 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 the standing wave itself defines its boundaries because if it cannot move though time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.

As was mentioned earlier if one assumes the wavefunction is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time the next step in answering the question of why the future is what it is would be to show how and why it interacts with space to create the future in terms of probabilities.

That can be understood by using an analogy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm because one can use it to explain why it must define the future in terms probabilities. This is because the magnitude of the vibrations on it would be greatest at their focal point and decrease as one move away from

This suggests,  if the assumption the wavefunction represents vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space is correct,  similar to the rubber diaphragm the magnitude of those oscillations would be greatest at the focal point and decreases as one moves away from it.

However, as was shown earlier the particle component of the wavefunction can be explained in terms of a resonant structure formed by its interaction with the time dimension.

Yet the science of Wave Mechanics tells us resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point.

Similarly, the resonant structure associated with a particle defined earlier would MOST PROBABLY be found where the magnitude of the vibrations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point.

Another reason can be found in the fact that Quantum mechanics defines a particle in terms of a mathematical point in space. However, as was show above a particle has an extended volume define by the wave length of associated with its standing wave component. 

Therefore, the probability of finding a particle in a specific volume of space would consists of two factors.  The first would be the probability of where resonance system mentioned above associated with a particle establishes itself in space and where with respect to its volume the mathematical point quantum mechanics uses to define its position is found.

In other words, one can explain Quantum Mechanics probabilistic in interoperation of the wavefunction in terms a causal interaction between it and the universe it occupies.

Additionally, this shows why defining the outcome of an observation of the wavefunction as quantum mechanics does in terms of probabilities does not mean all the of those predicted futures exist.  This is because similar to the dice mentioned earlier the probability of a specific future is caused by a physical interaction of it with the universe it occupies.

Putting it another way, the reason why the future is what it is because the wavefunction does not define the future of the universe the universe defines the future of its wavefunction.

*****

15. An alternative explanation for  the variations or "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 model 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 the beginnings of its 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. 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 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 of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

However, 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 collapse the heat generated could provide another explanation for the variations in the Cosmic Background other than quantum fluctuations 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 the CBM.

If this were the case it would suggest that the variations in the CBM may not be due to any quantum phenomena as is suggested by the Big Bang hypothesis but by an unevenness of the collapse of a previous universe.

Additionally, many proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis believe the abundance of the light-elements in today universe helps to verify it because it can be used to predict it. 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 observation of their abundance in today's universe IN PART to help them define the mechanism responsible for their present abundance. Therefore, the reason why the big bang hypothesis CAN verify the abundance of the light-elements in today universe MAY be because their abundance was used (in part) to determine the mechanism responsible for their present abundance.

However, as was mentioned earlier one could use observations of our present universe to estimate if and when the heat generated by the momentum of its collapse would become great enough to cause it to expand.

If it was found that 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 CMB would be emitted.

Yet this also means one could use the observable properties of our present universe to estimate the expansion rate and temperature a each point in its history even before the CBM was created. This would allow one derive a mechanism that is responsible for the abundance of the lighter elements that would be independent of what it is now.

Putting it another way, there is another explanation of the "anisotropy" in the Cosmic Background Radiation and the abundance of the lighter elements other than the one promoted by the Big Bang theory that is testable based on observations of our present universe which DOES NOT included them in defining its creation.

16 Deriving gravity in terms of QED

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics.  Its 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 as defined in the General Theory of Relativity into that framework.

In Special Relativity the exchange energy between particles is derived terms of electromagnetic waves moving though the continuous field properties of space-time. While the General Theory of Relativity derives gravity in terms of distortion or curvature in the "surface" of that field created by an increase in the local energy density.

In Schrödinger's version of QFT, the wave function defines the mathematical evolution of an ISOLATED quantum system.  That along with SUPERPOSITION principle of quantum mechanics allows one to add of all possible outcomes defined by the wave function together to derive the quantum equivalent of the classical and the space-time fields of Relativity.

Putting it another way both QED and Special Relativity derive the evolution of the field properties of their environments in terms of waves.  Relativity defines it in terms of the exchange of energy between objects in terms of an electromagnetic wave moving thought the field properties of space-time while QED mathematically defines it in terms of an interaction of the wave function with the field properties of all possible outcomes.

This suggests that the wave function that defines the evolution of field properties of QED may be a MATHEMATICAL representation of an electromagnetic wave that defines it in space-time.

As was mentioned earlier the General Theory of Relativity derives the "evolution" of a gravitational field in terms of distortion or curvature in the "surface" of a space-time field created by an increase in its local energy density while QED derive it in terms of how an interaction of the wave function with all possible outcomes would cause the creation of a particle and therefore an increase the energy density of space.

This suggests one way to integrate gravity into QED may be to define how and why the interaction of the field properties of all possible outcomes with the wave function causes a QUANTIZED increase its energy density.

However, one can show Relativity also define quantum gravity by showing why an interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the field properties of space-time also results in a QUANTIZED increase in the energy density of space.

In other words, one can show gravitational forces may not be quantized but their causality MAY be.

One way of accomplish this would be to use the science of wave mechanics and the fact Relatively tells us the energy of an electromagnetic wave energy would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found thereby increasing it energy density. 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 it defines  quantum gravity in terms of how and why an electromagnetic wave interacts with field properties of space-time to cause a QUANTIZED increase in energy density and therefore the gravitational potential in a specific region of space.

However, to derive quantum gravity in terms of QED one must show how the interaction of the wave function with the field properties of ALL possible outcomes would result in quantum increase in the energy density of that field.

One way of doing this would be to compare the mathematical oscillations associated with the wave function in the field properties of all possible outcomes to ball oscillating on a rubber diaphragm.  Observations of that diaphragm tell us those vibrations will be disturbed over its surface while its magnitude would decrease as one moves away from the focal point of the oscillations.

Similarly, if the assumption that wave function is a mathematical representation of vibrations or oscillations in the field properties of ALL possible outcomes, is correct these oscillations would be distributed the entire field while the magnitude of those oscillations would be greatest at their focal point and decreases as one moves away from it.  Putting it another way, the PROBABILITY of QUANTUM increase in its energy density in space due to a particle being there would be related its distance from the focal point of those oscillations.

In other words, it is possible to understand why gravity is quantized in terms of both quantum mechanics and Relativity by assuming it is the result of interaction of a wave moving through their respective fields.  For example, as was shown above when an electromagnetic wave interacts with the field properties of space-time it would create a quantized increase in the energy density of space.  While, as was also shown above when the mathematical properties of the wave function interacts with the probably field associated QED it creates a particle or quantized increase in the energy density of space would be responsible for gravity.

*****

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

The probability amplitudes quantum mechanics associates with the wave function provides a relationship between it and the system it represents while its mathematical properties are used to make predictions of its evolution. Putting it another way, it tells us a particle will most likely be found where the probability amplitudes of its wave function is greatest yet it tells us nothing about the physicality of a particle or why it appears only when observed or what makes a particle a particle

Einstein tells in his Special Relativity the evolution of space-time is the result of electromagnetic waves transferring energy  form from one particle or object to another though the field properties of space-time.  While his General Theory of Relativity tells us a particle is made up of the energy or mass created by a distortion in space-time but tells us nothing about why one must define its position in terms of probabilities.

Therefore, to derive quantum mechanical equivalent of the wave function in a space-time one must show how and why one MUST define the position of particles in terms of probabilities based on the physical properties of a space-time environment.

(NOTE We will use the position interpretation of the Probability to define the above relationship However, the same logic can also apply to all other interpretations).

To begin we must establish a physical connection between the wave function and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because as was mentioned earlier in Relativity evolution of space-time is the result of an electromagnetic wave while, as was also mentioned earlier the wave function represents 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. This means to derive the probability amplitudes the wave function associates with a particles position in terms of space-time one must physically connect the evolution of that wave to the mathematical properties of the wave function.

This can be accomplish by using the science of wave mechanics because it and Relatively tells us wave energy would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 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 time 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 time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.

Putting it another way a particle is a wave that is moving ONLY IN time and NOT THROUGH time and space

This same explanation can be applied to the wave function if it is prevented from moving through the probability field by an observation its energy would become confined to three-dimensional space in the form of particle.

The next step in deriving the Probability amplitudes of quantum mechanics in terms of an electromagnetic wave is to explain why the position of a particle when observe can only be determine in terms of a probability.

One way of doing this would be to compare the oscillations in the "surface" of three-dimensional space associated with an electromagnetic wave to ball oscillating on a rubber diaphragm. Observations of that diaphragm tell us its energy will be disturbed over its surface while its magnitude would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.

However, as was shown earlier one can derive the mathematical evolution of the wave function by in terms an electromagnetic wave in space-time

However, because quantum mechanics defines a particle in terms of a one-dimensional point means it could be found anywhere within the volume occupied by the standing wave which earlier define particle. Therefore, there is a probability it could be found anywhere in that volume before it is observed.

Similarly, if the assumption that wave function is a mathematical representation of vibrations or oscillations of a resonant structure created by an electromagnetic wave on the "surface" of three-dimensional space, is correct these oscillations would be distributed over the "surface" three-dimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it. Putting it another way, the probability amplitudes quantum mechanics associates with the wave function defines the most likely position of the one-dimensional point it uses to define a particles position with respect to center of the standing which earlier defined its volume.

This shows how one can derive the probability amplitudes of quantum mechanics in terms of the physical properties of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

*****

18. The 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 the 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 are 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 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 proponent 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 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 time 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 they 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 make define 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. Mathematics verses observations

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

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

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles, were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

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

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 the equipment they used to define them.  However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem with it because, at least on earth, objects "naturally" did NOT follow the curve path associated with of epicycles.

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

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved or evolved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tells us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today.  This is because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise. 

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a state of superposition or exist in many different places before observed based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function.  But it cannot explain why a particle only appears when it was observed in terms of observations of environment it is defining and therefore cannot be validated as a solution to its evolution.  

However, it is possible to validate a mathematical solution terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

For example, the math and the observations of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us wave energy would move or evolve continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 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 shows that it is possible to develop a mathematical solution that can not only explain why a particle appears when observed but also why energy is quantized that can be validated in terms of the environment it is defining.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to define the evolution of system NOT a replacement for it.

*****

19 mathematics verses observations

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

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

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles, were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

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

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 the equipment they used to define them.  However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem with it because, at least on earth, objects "naturally" did NOT follow the curve path associated with of epicycles.

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

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved or evolved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tells us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today.  This is because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise. 

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a state of superposition or exist in many different places before observed based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function.  But it cannot explain why a particle only appears when it was observed in terms of observations of environment it is defining and therefore cannot be validated as a solution to its evolution.  

However, it is possible to validate a mathematical solution terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

For example, the math and the observations of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us wave energy would move or evolve continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 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 shows that it is possible to develop a mathematical solution that can not only explain why a particle appears when observed but also why energy is quantized that can be validated in terms of the environment it is defining.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to define the evolution of system NOT a replacement for it.

*****

20. Karl Popper

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 justifies 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 empirical must also have ability to be 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.

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 define 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 stop 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 who's 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 agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination,

but does not advance our knowledge.’

*****

21. Deriving the Realty of the wave function

There are two ways science attempts to explain and define the behavior 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 universe of Einstein which defines it in terms of a physical interaction between space and time.

Specifically, Einstein defined the position a particle in terms of where an increase in the energy density in space associated with its 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, even though those probabilities appears to be incompatible with Relativity's determinism they can be explained in terms of a physical interaction between space and time.

For example, when we role 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 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.

Therefore, to integrate the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function in terms of the deterministic properties of space and time one must show how and why an interaction between them is responsible for the position of a particle when observed .

One way of doing this is to use the fact that evolution in both a quantum and space-time environments are controlled by a wave.

For example, 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.

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

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact Relatively tells us electromagnetic moves 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 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 the deterministic interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the physical properties of space-time

However, the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is required because Quantum mechanics defines the position of a particle in terms of mathematical point in space which it randomly defines respect to its center. 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.

This shows Relativity is indeterminate on a quantum scale while also being deterministic on a macroscopic level because those deviations would be averaged out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets

It shows how one can derive the "Reality" of probabilistic world of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic one of space-time by assuming the wavefunciton is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave.

*****

22. Finally an experiment that WILL unambiguously determine if quantum mechanics or Relativity rules the universe.

(Please visit https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm if you are interested in reading other Facebook postings on this and other related subjects.)

Richard Feynman the farther of Quantum Electrodynamics or "OED" realized the significance of the Thompson's double slit experiment because it demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle properties of particles and felt a complete understanding of quantum mechanics could be gleaned from carefully thinking through its implications. 

However it also allows one to understand the physical connection between quantum mechanics and 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 physical properties of space-time and Relatively because they tell us wave energy moves continuously through space and time time unless it is prevented from by moving through time 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 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 the particle quantum mechanic calls a photon would have 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 time 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 time it MUST STAND in place in the form of a standing wave.)

As was mentioned earlier one can use the above to demonstrate the physical connection between quantum mechanics 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.  This would occur because wave energy is allowed to move freely through time.

However, when its energy is prevented from moving through time 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 to form an interference pattern on the screen.

However it also explains why, as was mentioned "there are ways to determine which slit a photon 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 the wave after passing through a slit that will permit the interference pattern although somewhat altered to be re-established on the other side.

This provides an EXPERIMENTAL WAY of determining if observed 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. What is Dark Matter? A simple answer Einstein would have liked.

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 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 it cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity because Einstein defined gravity in terms of the "depth" of a gravity well or distortion in the "surface" of space-time caused by the energy density of an environment and NOT on existence of visible or baryonic matter. This means the energy of electromagnetic fields, photons and all other forms of energy along with that associated with visible matter must be taken consideration when determining the energy density of space and therefore its gravitational potential.

This suggests the reason it does not appear to interact with an electromagnetic field is because a large part it MAY BE made up of an electromagnetic field.

The observation electromagnetic energy prevents the visible matter in stars from collapsing to a black hole or falling to the button of its gravity well supports this conclusion because it tells us its gravitational potential MUST BE oppositely directed with respect to that of visible matter. 

Some might say, if that were true it should have the same effect on the orbits of planets as it does on stars in galaxies. However, the reason it DOES NOT is because the offset it creates would be affect the gravitational field of the entire solar system.  Therefore, objects that are gravitationally bound to a star would only experience the gravitational potential of its visible matter.

One can understand why by using an analogy of a jar containing water and oil where the water represents gravitational potential of electromagnetic energy while the oil represents that of visible matter. The water prevents the oil from sinking to the bottom because its "directional energy" is opposite or is more buoyant than the water. This would be analogous to how electromagnetic energy prevents the visible matter in stars from sinking to the bottom of a stars gravity well.

However, as was mentioned earlier Einstein defined gravity in terms of the "depth" of a gravity well or distortion in the "surface" of space-time caused by the energy density of an environment NOT on existence of visible of baryonic matter.

Therefore, to determine the TOTAL gravitational potential or depth of the gravity well of a solar system one must ADD the energy density associated with electromagnetic energy to that of its visible matter.

Yet, to define the gravitational potential on objects which ARE GRAVITATIONALLY bound to a star one would HAVE TO use only that contributed by the visible matter because, as mentioned earlier a solar systems gravity well is offset by the electromagnetic energy. Therefore, any objects gravitational bound to a star would only be affected by the gravitational potential of the visible matter.

This would be analogous how one inside the jar, mentioned above would measure the height of the oil with respect to the water line. 

Similarly, a planet inside a solar system would measure the gravitational potential it would experience from "height" associated with the visible matter with respect to the "height" of the gravitational potential of its electromagnetic energy.

One can also use the example of the jar mentioned earlier to understand why galaxies in galactic clusters and stars orbiting in them are affected by BOTH the gravitational potential of electromagnetic energy and visible matter.

For example, one outside the jar would add the height of the oil to the water to get its total height

Similarly, galaxies in galactic clusters and stars that are not gravitational bound to a solar system would experience the gravitational potential contributed by both the visible matter electromagnetic energy for the same reason that one who was outside the jar mentioned earlier would measure the height above its bottom in by adding the height of the water to the oil.

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 because it is in equilibrium with oppositely directed gravitational energy he associated with its electromagnetic energy.

He also tells us ANY FORM of energy that COUNTERACTS that of the gravitational potential of visible matter must also be consider a component of the Dark Matter. For example, the orbital energy of the stars in a galactic would have to be included because it also adds to the energy density of the space they occupy. In other words, not only do you have to add the energy density contributed by electromagnetic energy to that of the visible matter in stars but you must also add their orbital energy to determine to determine their total gravitational potential of a galaxy.  Additionally, the fact that galaxies are gravitational bound in galactic clusters means you must also consider the energy density contributed by their rotational energy to the Dark mater component of the universe.

Additionally, the OBSERVATION that electromagnetic energy offsets the gravitational potential of the visible matter tells us that it must contribute AT LEAST an equal amount to universe total. The remaining Dark matter could be provided by the energy density contributed by dust, helium atoms, black holes along their orbital energy.

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

*****

26. A possible solution to the problems of Quantum Computing

What gives Quantum computers their power is the fact they use the qubit that exists in superposition which allows it to encode information in four states instead of two states as standard computers do. Because a quantum computer can contain these multiple states simultaneously, it has the potential to be millions of times more powerful than today's most powerful semiconductor driven supercomputers.

However, another property of quantum mechanics that makes them possible is known as entanglement because to make a practical quantum computer, scientists have to devise ways of making measurements indirectly to preserve the integrity of the qubit. One way of doing this is to use quantum entangled superpositioned bits resulting in each one having four values.

Entanglement is important because it allows one to form a single system such that the state of any one particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other particles. This means that whatever operation or process you apply to one particle correlates to the other particles as well. However, the instant it is disturbed it chooses one value; and at the same time, the second entangled atom will choose an opposite one value. This allows scientists to know the value of the state of an individual components of in a Qubit by observing its entangled companion without actually looking at or disturbing the qubit

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 process of everything from transistors in modern computers to the Qubit in a quantum computer.

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 particles that make up the qubit.

We believe Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were aware of this SPECIAL PROPERTY of a photon 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 reasons why they would be entangled which were different from those given by quantum mechanics.

Einstein told us the observe distance between the measurement of end points of objects or particles in relative motion would be shorter in direct relationship to their speed from the perspective of those objects or particles. In other words, the faster particles are moving relative to the observers the shorter the distance between the end points of those observations will be from their perspective. At the speed of light, he tells us the distance between the end points of any and all measurements will be zero from the perspective of any 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 from the perspective of photons moving at the speed of light the distance between the end point of the measurements made between all human observers in the universe no matter where they are MUST be is zero.

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

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 alternating explanation as to why with respect to photons, which is just a valid as the one provided by quantum mechanics.

Since 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 if entanglement is a relativistic property of space because the physical properties of all particles such as spin can overlap or be entangled even if they are stationary with respect to each other . This is because the de Broglie wavelength which defines the length scale of the wave-like properties of a particle tell us that all quantum entities interact, in a such a way that the quantum state of each particle of the group is reflected in the other if the distance between them is less that that value. Therefore, any particles that are closer to each other than that wavelength would be entangled.

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 Black holes be responsible for the expansion period in our universe's history?

The Big Bang theory tells us that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, it was all compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity which suddenly, for some unknown reason began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

However, another idea which has not been considered is that our universe has its origins in the expansion of a black hole NOT a singularity.

Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume that a black hole can expand however I think it is crazier to assume that the expansion of a single one-dimensional point called a singularity can result in the observable properties of our universe.

As observations of stars show, what prevents it from collapsing to a black hole is a balance between the internal heat generated by the nuclear reactions and the gravitational forces of it mass.

Cosmologists have not yet been able to determine if the universe will keep on expanding or enter a contraction phase. However, its contraction would cause its temperature increase.

As was just mentioned what prevents a star from clasping to a black hole is a balance between gravity and its temperature. Therefore, the increase in the temperature of the universe as it collapses will upset the gravitational balance of all the black holes it contains causing their event horizon to expand.  This will result in the release of some of their stored gravitational energy to space, creating a positive feedback loop that would increase the overall rate at which the temperature of the universe increases.  The energy released by a single one would only result in a small increase in that rate and therefore the rate of the universe expansion. However, the cascading release of energy due to the positive feed from a large number over a short period of time COULD result in a very rapid expansion.

One advantage to basing a model of our expanding universe on the release of the energy stored in black holes is that it defines a mechanism for the start of its expansion in terms of an observable properties of our universe. Additionally, one can, through observations estimate the total energy content of all of the black holes in universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE based on how many presently exist.  This would allow one to determine it rate of its expansion from the beginning based on the quantity of energy they released.

To determine if this IDEA is viable solution to the origins of the universe one would have to first determine if heat can cause a black hole to release it stored gravitational energy. If it can one may be able to mathematically quantify the temperature required for that to occur. We may also be able to estimate the temperature the complete collapse of the universe would attain. If that value is greater than the temperature required to cause a black hole to release its energy it would add creditability to the above IDEA. After that it may be possible to determine the rate at which the temperature would increase due cascading release of the gravitational energy from black holes. If that is possible, we may be able derive the rate of the universe expansion at every point in its history including the point when its expansion began.

In other words, it would allow us to define our universe's expansion based on the mathematical analysis of the observable properties of our environment instead of the unobservable properties of a quantum singularity as is suggest by the big bang model.

*****

28. The block universe fact or fiction

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 an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

This indicates a unit of time may be measure of sequential ordering of change in it 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 a point in space an object is located.

Einstein define the energy required for a change in physical space in terms of a dynamics of the interaction between space and time.

For example, he defined the change caused by gravity in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time.

However, the block universe does 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 suggest 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, there is another interpretation of Einstein theory that allows free will by defining the changes associated with time in terms of someone moving IN instead of THROUGH it.

One can understand this 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.

As was mentioned earlier he define change in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time, therefore, one can understand change or the passage of time in terms of an interaction between two dots "living" on it.

For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots.  This would define the casually of change or time on its surface because, as was mentioned earlier it can be defined as measure of a change in physical space. However, it DID NOT require the balloon to move through three-dimension space.

Again, as was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined change in terms of a 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.  However, similar to the balloon one can define that change WITHOUT three-dimensional space having to move THROUGH a time dimension.

If this is true it means that 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 time is a measure of the sequential ordering of change in physical space is that it give us a way to define why we perceive it to be irreversible in terms of its spatial properties. 

For example if we removed the pressure on the balloon the two dots return to their original position. However, that removal  causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from they did when it was applied.  Yet even though their positions are indistinguishable form their original ones the dots "living" on its surface they would know that their return to their original position was a different event because they can observe that they moved in opposite directions.  In other words it would tell them that they were different and that they had not moved back in time.

Similarly if a cue ball returns to its original position after hitting the side bank most don't think that it had moved back in time. This is because they recognize that that represents a new event because they can observe it moved spatial in a different direction before returning.

This shows how defining time in terms of its spatial properties allows us to understand the why time always move forward and that the future can be determined by how we decide to interact with the past.

*****

29. Quantum Tunneling in space time

Quantum tunneling is the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a wavefunction can propagate through a potential barrier.

Many believe the ability of a particle to penetrate through a potential energy barrier that is higher in energy than its kinetic energy can only be explain by assuming it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.

However, that MAY NOT be true because it could be due to the dynamics of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.

But before begin we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. 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 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 the mathematical properties of the wave functions defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of its wave particle duality. However, as was shown above one can understand why 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 kinetic 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 with more energy.  This means if crests of the standing wave responsible for a particle mentioned above collide, they will produce which a wave MAY have enough kinetic energy to go over a potential energy barrier that is higher than the kinetic energy of the original wave. 

One could validate this conclusion in terms of the physical connection again as mentioned above between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. Because if it true one should be able to use it to define PROBABILITY of where and when the crests of the two waves associated with wave function would most likely interact to produce one with enough energy over come the kinetic energy barrier. If that probability agrees with the observed number that passes through the barrier that 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 the observation that a system which is oscillating at is natural resonant frequency is one the most efficient ways to store and transfer energy between different storage modes.

This combined with one of the most test and accepted laws of physics that energy can neither be created or destroyed suggests the reason why electrons do not fall into the nucleus MAY BE because their energy is stored in resonate systems.

Both quantum mechanics and the FACT that electron diffraction has been observed tell us that it has properties of waves.  Therefore, to verify the above assumption one must show what keeps it from falling into the nucleus is a resonate system created in the space around the nucleus by its wave properties.

The first step is to show how a resonant system can be created around a nucleus.

Science of wave mechanics tells us the wave energy associated with an electron would move continuously through the space around the nucleus because it is bound to it. This would create a resonant or standing wave in it that would define its energy level. 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 it defines why the energy levels in atoms are quantized.

As was mentioned earlier one of the most test and accepted laws of physics is that energy can neither be created or destroyed.  However, since energy can neither be crated or destroyed an electrons energy could NEVER repeat NEVER disappear by falling in the 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 which earlier define the quantum properties of the orbital energy levels in an atom. Therefore, it tells us the energy in each level would most likely be stored in a resonant system or standing wave that has the energy associated with that level.

However, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized value associated with its fundamental frequency.  This define in terms of the classical properties of wave mechanics the reason all atomic orbital are quantized is because their energy is stored in a system which is oscillating at the natural resonant frequency associated with its energy.

Both quantum mechanics and as was shown above classical wave mechanics gives valid reasons why electrons do not fall in the nucleus based on their theoretical foundations.  Quantum mechanics assumes they do not because their energy is quantized based on the unobservable mathematical of the wave function.  However, as was show above Classical wave mechanics give a reason which are just as valid in terms of the observable properties standing waves and the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

However physics is a science based on observation.  Therefore if one can show that both yield the same quantitative results for the energy of the energy level in atoms one would have admit the one describe above is more credible because it is based on observations of our physical environment.