(Please feel free to email a link ** https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm ** to this site, save it as a HTML file or copy and paste it to your word processor.)

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

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

 

     

Thank you Jeffrey O'Callaghan

Relativity

 

Quantum mechanics

 

35 Why finding a Theory of Everything is so difficult.

 

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

2.Why a singularity cannot not 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 is what it is.

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

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

13. Deriving LIGHT or electromagnetic radiation in terms of Einstein's definition of gravity.

14. Why the future is what it is.

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

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory.

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

20. Karl Popper the philosophy of change

22. An experiment that WILL determine if quantum mechanics or Relativity rules the universe.

23. Einstein's theories CAN tell us where Dark Matter is hiding?

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

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

28. Einstein's block universe fact or fiction

32. Why the arrow of time is irreversible.

34. Should we allow math to define our existence or have it define our math.

 

 

3. Deriving the collapse of the wave function in terms of space time.

5. Quantum entanglement as defined by Einstein.

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

7. How should we define reality? 

8. Why the graviton is so hard to detect.

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

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

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

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

20. Karl Popper

21. The Realty of the wave function

22. An experiment that CAN determine if quantum mechanics or Relativity rules the universe.

24 Electron diffraction and the downfall of Quantum Mechanics

26. A possible solution to the problems of Quantum Computing

29. Quantum Tunneling in space time

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

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

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

 

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 cannot continue to collapse to the point called a singularity.

    In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a black hole its laws do not break down because it tells us time freezes at its "surface" or event horizon with respect to all observers. 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 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 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 tell us that it would take an infinite amount of time for it to form singularity after passing through the event horizon of a black hole for the same reason it takes an infinite amount of time for it to cross it from the outside.

    This is because as mass is added to it the curvature defining the gravitational geodesic that defines it event horizon it expands adding another layer to it. However, that does not mean that the matter that is under that layer is free to move towards its center.  This is because the gravitational curvature in the geodesic that defines its 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. This is because Einstein's math tells us it would take an infinite amount of time to cross to a lower gravitational level for the same reason as it would take an infinite amount of time for it to pass through the event horizon.

    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 one. However, that does not mean that it collapses to a singularity. This is because according Einstein math a black hole could be the result enough matter accumulating on its surface to cause its gravitational geodesic to circle back in on itself. Putting it another way a black hole may just be made up of SOLID BALL of the extremely dense mass of neutrons

*****

3. Deriving the collapse of the wave function in terms of space time.

    Quantum mechanics defines the evolution the universe in terms of the mathematical properties of a wave function which tells us matter exists as both waves and particles and only collapses or "decides" which one it what's to be when it interacts with the external world while Einstein defines it in terms of the physical properties of space-time.

    Therefore, to define how the wave function evolves in terms of space-time one must show how the interactions of its mathematical properties with space time causes it to decide if it what's to be a particle or a wave.

    To do that we must first establish a physical connection between them and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished by the fact evolution in both a quantum and space-time environments are defined 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 a wave function.

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

    This means one can connect them by using that commonality, the science of wave mechanics and the fact that Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by an interaction with the external 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. 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 quantum mechanics associates with particles. 

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.

    Putting it another way one can show how and why matter exists as both a wave and particle and only "decides" which one it what's to be when it interacts with the external world of in a space time if one assumes that the wave function is representative of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. 

*****

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.    

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

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

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

    However, his equations and observations have confirmed the relativistic mass of a body increases over its finite rest mass if moving at a speed relative to the observer.  This tells the reason why mass resists a change in motion is because it's relative mass a therefore its velocity cannot increase faster than energy can be added to it.  Yet Relativity also tells us the reason why mass is resistance to acceleration is because electromagnetic or any other form of energy can ONLY be propagated at the finite speed of light.  Putting it another way according to relativity the, resistance mass has to a change in motion is NOT related to a property of mass but to a physical field property of space time that limits the rate at which energy can be added to it.

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

*****

5.  Quantum entanglement as define by Einstein

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

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

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

    However, we must be careful not to jump to conclusions because Einstein gave us the definitive answer as to how and why some particles, such as photons are entangled 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 affect another even though they are physically separated from each other.

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

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

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

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

    However, his Theory of Special Relativity tells us objects moving at relativistic speeds with respect to a laboratory would cause the distance separating the end points of an observation made in it to contract along the direction of motion.  Yet, it also tells us that the separation between those two points would be zero form the perspective of an object moving at the speed of light.

    This means according Einstein 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 verifying if this is correct would be to determine if particles which were NOT moving at the speed of light experience entanglement over the same distances as photons 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 where they are being observed.

    However, he also tells us that distance will be greater than zero for particles moving slower than the speed of light; how much more would depend on their speed relative to the observer.

    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 if the relativistic distance between the end points of observation when viewed from the perspective of particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its wavelength as defined by quantum mechanics.

    Some have suggested that "There are inertial frames for every speed less than light but there is none 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 Einstein's formulas for length contractions associated with relative motion ARE SOLVABLE for the speed of light.  That tells, us since there is a valid solution for the speed of light which is zero the distance between the endpoints of all observations made in a lab CAN be zero for all photons.  Putting it another way even though it may define reference frame of zero length does it does NOT mean it is degenerate because as was mentioned earlier it is a valid solution of Einstein's equations.

*****

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

    Quantum mechanics states what the universe is made of while not giving an explanation of why it is that way 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 how the mathematical properties of the wave function interact with the wave-particle duality of existence. However, it also tells us that one can NOT precisely determined both the momentum and position of a particle at the same time.  But does NOT provide an explanation for why this uncertainty exists in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe

    On the other hand, Relativity explains the existence of the universe and the particles it contains in terms of an interaction between space and time without telling us what wave-particle duality of existence is or how it interacts with it to create the Uncertainty Principal as defined by quantum mechanics.

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

    One can connect them because the science of wave mechanics and Relativity 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.

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

    (The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties. 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 Quantum mechanics defines the wave particle duality of existence in terms of the mathematical properties of the wave functions. However, as was shown above one can understand why in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because as was shown above if it is prevented from evolving through space by an observation it presents itself as a particle.

    Yet, it also shows why if unobserved its wave properties will continue to evolve through the mathematical world defined by quantum mechanics similar to how electromagnetic wave continues to evolves through a space-time universe.

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

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

    This shows how one can understand the dynamics of the Uncertainty Principle in terms of OBSERVABLE properties of space-time.

*****

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 ONLY 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 of getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.  Putting it another way the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

    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 is so hard to detect.

    Quantum mechanics assumes the mathematical evolution of the wave function is responsible for quantization of ALL mass and energy.  Additionally, it assumes it exists in a superposition of several eigenstates and only reduces or COLLAPSES to a particle when it interacts with the external world.

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

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

    But before we can understand why we need to establish a connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function, its collapse and the physical evolution of both electromagnetic and gravity waves. 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 reason for its collapse in terms of space-time one must physically connect its evolution to it.

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

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

    However, as was mentioned earlier observations have shown gravity waves do not interact or exchange energy with protons, electrons, planets or observers and therefore its energy will not be confined to three-dimensional space as is the case with electromagnetic waves.

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

    This is similar to how a wave on water does not exchange energy between water molecules it just "squeezes" and "stretches" the space between them returning them to their original position after it has passed

    As was also mentioned earlier, quantum mechanics assumes the wave function reduces to a quantized unit of energy ONLY when it is observed or interacts with its environment. HOWEVER, FOR IT TO DO EITHER REQUIRES ENERGY TO BE EXCHANGE BETWEEN THEM.

    This suggests the reason why a graviton is so hard to detect MAY NOT be because it is so weak but MAY be related to how we are trying to observe it. This is because gravity waves, as was just shown do NOT exchange energy with either the environment it is moving through or the equipment used to observe it. Therefore, according the rules of quantum mechanics the wave function SHOULD NOT and WILL NOT collapse to create a graviton unless we can find a way to get it to interact with its environment

    Putting it another way just watching it pass by will not produce a graviton.

*****

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

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

    Specifically, Einstein defines the evolution of particles in a space time environment in terms of an electromagnetic wave 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 appear to be incompatible with Relativity's determinism it can be shown that one MAY be the causality of the other.

    (It should be remembered even though we will use the measurement of a particle's position to define that interaction it can be applied to the measurement of all of their Conjugate variables.)

    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 environment of the casino it occupies.

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

    But before we begin, we need to establish a connection between it and the deterministic universe of space-time. This can be accomplished because as was mentioned earlier in Relativity the evolution of a particle is define by an electromagnetic wave while, the wave function represents how a Quantum environment evolves to create a particle.

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

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

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

    The boundaries or "walls" of its confinement would be defined by its wave properties becuase as was just mentioned 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.

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

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

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

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

*****

10. Why a photon is what it is.

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

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

But if it has no mass, it also has no energy because his equation E=mc^2 tells us energy is equivalent to mass. Some have tried to use a mathematical argument the equation E=mc^2 is a special case of the more general equation: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 which for a particle with no mass, reduces down to E = p2c2. Therefore, because photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and they get all of their energy from their momentum.  However, the "p" in the equation NOT ONLY represents the momentum of a photon it also represents the energy associated with its motion. Thus, according to E=mc^2 that energy MUST also be considered mass. Putting it another way it does NOT MATER how we define the energy of a photon the fact that it has energy means it also has mass and therefore, SHOULD NOT be able move at the speed of light.

(Some have suggested that because "E" is the total relativistic energy, which consists of rest mass (mc^2), and momentum (pc) it is fundamentally wrong to say that anything with energy has mass. Therefore, a photon with momentum can still carry energy because it has no rest mass. However, even though Einstein may have defined Relativistic energy in terms of its components such as rest mass, and momentum he did not make the same distinction regarding their energy. What he DID do was define gravity and therefore mass in terms of a curvature in space-time caused by the energy density of space. This means that we should NOT assume the increase in its energy density caused by the momentum of photon will NOT do the same. Since his equation E=mc^2 defines the energy contained in the curvature in space-time he associated with mass we must assume the added energy density associated with a photon's momentum will cause it to have mass. This means it is as some have suggested FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG to say the momentum of photon can carry energy because it has no rest mass.")

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

While if one can show that electromagnetic energy is NOT propagate by the particle called a photon it would invalidate Quantum mechanics because one of its core principals is that all energy it quantized.

This suggests if one could explain ALL of the observable properties of a photon PURELY in terms of the theoretical structure of either one of these theories it would validate one over the other.

   For example, one can use the science of wave mechanics to understand how energy can be propagated faster than the speed of light in terms of the continuous field properties of the space-time environment defined by Einstein because it tells us waves move energy from one location to another without transporting the material they are moving on. For example, a water molecule does not actually travel with the waves but does transmit that movement associated with it to the next unit of water. Putting it another way the molecules that make up the wave remain stationary with respect to the back ground of the water. Additionally, it will continue to do so unless it is obstructed by encountering an object or beach.

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

However, one can also use the science of wave mechanics to understand why an electromagnetic wave ALWAYS takes on the form of a particle called a photon if it is prevented from moving through space by an interaction with an observer or the "external world".

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

This shows if one assumes that electromagnetic energy is propagated BY a wave NOT a particle one can explain how it can be propagated though space at the speed of light and why when it interacts with the external world of an observer it APPEARS as a photon in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions of Einstein Theory of Relativity.

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 or the wave function as they like to call it only reduces or COLLAPSES to a photon or quantized unit of energy when it is observed or interacts with something.

However, as was mentioned earlier Quantum Mechanism tells us electromagnetic energy MUST be propagated by a particle called a photon however it CANNOT explain how it can move at the speed of light SOLELY in terms of its theoretical structure.

This suggests that Einstein theory provides the best theoretical model for understanding why a photon is what it is because it can explain ALL of its observable properties in terms of its theoretical structure whereas Quantum mechanics CAN NOT.

*****

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

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

    This is because it is one of the 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. It assumes this connection persists even if you move one of the entangled objects far away from the other. Therefore, when an observer interacts with one the other is instantly affected.

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

    Since these two concepts are diametrically opposite, if one can define the mechanism responsible for entanglement in terms of either one it would invalidate the other.

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

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

    However, he also told us the relative distance between two objects or points in space is defined by their relative motion with respect to those points and 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 be defined from the perspective of the photons moving at the speed of light.

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

    Yet because ALL particles have an extended volume equal to their wavelength there will be an overlap or entanglement if the distance separating them is less than their volume as defined by 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 an experimental way to UNEQUIVOCALLY to determine if Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's' theories define why the universe is what it is.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    Yet, because of the non-linear effects of these two process 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 GRAVITY HAS ON TIME WHICH WOULD CAUSES IT TO APPEAR TO EXPAND 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 after that correction 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 but decelerating.

    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 the 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. Deriving LIGHT or electromagnetic radiation in terms of Einstein's definition of gravity.

    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 the geometry of space and time he was unable to do the same for the propagation of an electromagnetic wave 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.

    This means to fully describe the observable properties of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the geometry of space and time one must first show how its electric and magnetic fields interact with it to create one and then explain its photonic or particle properties in the same terms.

    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 FORCE OF ELECTROMAGNETISM IS CAUSED BY A CURVATURE IN "SURFACE" OF SPACE TIME THAT IS PERPENDICULAR TO LINE OF ACTION OF GRAVITY CAUSED BY THE PEAKS AND VALLEYS OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE MOVING IN IT.

    One can understand the mechanism responsible by using the analogy of how a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. The science of wave mechanics tells us a force would be developed by these displacements which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or becoming "attracted" to each other and the surface of the water.

    Similarly, an energy wave on the "surface" of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to the axis of gravitational forces would cause a point on that "surface" to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

    Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to the properties of two of the three spatial dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by an energy wave on it which will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become "attracted" to each other as the wave moves through space.

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

    However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar electrical fields of an electromagnetic wave repel each other. This is because observations of waves show there is a direct relationship between the magnitude of a displacement in its "surface" to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

    Similarly, the magnitude of a displacement in a "surface" of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to line of action of gravitational forces by two similar electrical fields will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, they will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for them than it would be for a single one.

    One can also derive the magnetic component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the horizontal force developed along the axis that is perpendicular to the displacement caused by its peaks and troughs associated with the electric fields. This would be analogous to how the perpendicular displacement of a mountain generates a horizontal force on the surface of the earth, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement. THIS EXPLAINS WHY THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ARE IN PHASE OR MAXIMUM AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.

    As was shown above the science of wave mechanics allows one to explain the 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.

    PUTTING IT ANOTHER WAY THIS SHOWS HOW ELECTROMAGNETISM AND GRAVITY CAN BOTH BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF A BROADER MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE BASED ON THE  THE GEOMETRY OF SPACE-TIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

   In other words  by assuming light is created by the movement of wave on the two-dimensional plane of space that is 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 through a gravitational lens would be polarized because the lateral acceleration of gravity was excluded. They feel the above explanation is falsified because this is not observed. However, because the shift in its orientation as it enters a gravitational lens would be opposite of what it would experience leaving it would cancel and therefore light traveling through one would NOT observed it to be polarized.

*****

14. Why the future is what it is.

        Classical physics is causal; a complete knowledge of the past allows for the 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. This means 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 due to its probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction, many different ones exist simultaneously or are superposition with respect to each other. Which one becomes 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 simultaneous exist while the other which based on causality tells us there is only one.

    However, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after the roll. This is because the probability of getting a six is related to its physical interaction with properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. This means the probability of getting a 1 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.

    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 define by Einstein. This can be accomplished because he defined its evolution in terms of an electromagnetic wave while 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. Therefore, to derive the probabilities quantum mechanics associates with it one must first physically connect its evolution to the physical properties of space-time.

    One can accomplish this because the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us electromagnetic wave move 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 a quantum existence in terms of the physical properties of the space-time universe define by Einstein.  

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

    This also tells us particle would have an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave.

    The next step in answering the question as to why the future is what it is would be to show how and why that standing wave interacts with space and time to create it in terms of the probabilities quantum mechanics associated with the wave function.

     The reason is because Quantum Mechanics defines the position of a particle in terms of mathematical point in space which would be randomly distributed with respect to a center of the standing wave which earlier defined one. Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space. This means one must define where it appears in terms of probabilities to average the deviations that are caused by the random placement of that point.

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

    This shows how one can understand the probabilistic in interoperation of the wave function which quantum mechanics use to define the future 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 because similar to the dice 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 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 and more recently the European Space Agency Planck satellite showed the universe was not homogeneous either now or at the time when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

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

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

    We still have not been able to determine if the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or if it will eventually collapse in on itself. But if it did 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 another age of "recombination"

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

      Many proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis have ALSO suggested it is the only model that can accurately predict abundance of the light-elements in today's universe. This is because both theory and observation have led astronomers to believe the mechanism responsible for creating the lighter elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) occurred in the first few minutes after the Big Bang before the CBM was emitted, while the heavier elements are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the universe.

    However, the abundance of those light elements would be dependent on rate the universe expanded and the temperature profile at each point in it. Yet because as was mentioned earlier they are unable to observe what happened before the CBM many use the observation of their abundance in today's universe IN PART to help them define the conditions responsible for their creation.  Therefore, the reason why the big bang hypothesis CAN verify the abundance of the light-elements in today's universe MAY be because it was used (in part) to determine those conditions.

    However, as was mentioned earlier one 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 at 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 based on observations which would be independent of what is it is now.

    Putting it another way, there is another explanation of the "anisotropy" in the Cosmic Background Radiation other than quantum fluctuations 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 includ them in defining their creation.

*****

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

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

    In Relativity the exchange of energy between particles is derived terms of the evolution of an electromagnetic wave moving through the continuous field properties of space-time and derives gravity and THEREFORE MASS in terms of an increase in the local energy density of that field.

    While Schrödinger's version of QED describes the energy of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function.

    Putting it another way both QED and Relativity derive the evolution of their environments in terms of waves. Relativity defines it in terms of an electromagnetic wave moving thought them while QED mathematically defines it in terms of an interaction of the wave function with those of a quantum field.

     As was mentioned earlier the General Theory of Relativity derives gravity in terms of an increase in the local energy density in the field properties of space-time.

    This means one MAY be able to integrate gravity into QED by showing a how the mathematical evolution of the wave function defines an increase the local energy density in a quantum environment in terms of the field properties of space-time.

    But before we begin, we need to establish a connection between the evolution of the wave function in and the universe of space-time. This can be accomplished because as was mentioned earlier in Relativity evolution of a particle is the result of an electromagnetic wave while, the wave function represents how a Quantum environment evolves to create a particle.

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

    This integrates gravity into QED in terms of how and why an interaction of both the mathematical properties of the wavefunction or an electromagnetic wave a space-time field would cause a QUANTIZED increase in energy density and therefore the gravitational potential in a specific region of space.

    In other words, it is possible to understand why gravity is quantized in terms of both QED 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 excited states of the quantum field QED associates with a particle causes an increase in the local energy density of space which Einstein tells us is responsible for gravity.

*****

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

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

    However, Einstein tells us in his Special Relativity the evolution of space-time is the result of electromagnetic waves transferring energy form one particle or object to another though the field properties of space-time. While his General Theory of Relativity tells us a gravity and therefore the mass associated with a particle is created by an increase in the relative energy density of space-time but tells us nothing about how to define its position.

    Therefore, to derive probabilities quantum mechanics associates with the wave function in terms of space-time one must show how and why the position of a particle it a result of an interaction of electromagnetic wave with a space-time environment.

    (NOTE We will use the position component of that probability to define the above relationship. However, the same logic can also apply to all of its other ones.)

    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 accomplished by using the science of wave mechanics because it and Relativity tells us wave energy would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from 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 when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or "Collapses" to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

    The 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 interacting with its environment can only be determine in terms of a probability.

    The reason that is NECESSARY is because Quantum Mechanics defines the position of a particle in terms of mathematical point in space which would be randomly distributed with respect to a center of the standing wave which earlier defined one. Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space. This means one MUST use probability amplitudes or distributions to define the likelihood that any of the possible values would occur.

    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 wavefunction is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave.

*****

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 is caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

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

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

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

    In other words, if the 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 and observations tells that when the energy density reaches a certain level time will stop.  It does not say that an increase beyond that point will allow 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. Should we allow math to be the only definition of reality

    One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to 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 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 in terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

    For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through 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.  

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

    The physicist Richard Feynman is credited with saying "The weird thing about Quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it" in part because it defines reality ONLY in terms of the mathematical properties a wave function which only collapses to it when it is observed or interacts with something in its environment. However. it cannot explain what causes that to occur.

    However, as was shown above one can understand why in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because as was shown above if it is prevented from evolving through space by an interaction with it, it WILL and MUST present itself as a particle.

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

*****

20. Karl Popper the philosophy of change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Black summed it up

‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any

hypothesis agrees with the phenomena.

 This will please the imagination,

but does not advance our knowledge.’

*****

21. 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 is caused by its physical interaction with properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled. Putting it another way what defines the fact that six appears is NOT the probability of getting one but the interaction of the dice with the table and the casino it occupies.

    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 why Relativity is indeterminate on a quantum scale while 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. An experiment that CAN determine if quantum mechanics or Relativity rules the universe.    

    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 science of wave mechanics and Relatively because they tell us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space and time time unless it is prevented from by moving through 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 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 defines the Quantum properties of a photon and tells us it has an extended volume equal to the wavelength associated with its standing wave.

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

    (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. 

    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 and no interference pattern will form,

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

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

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

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

*****

23. Einstein's theories CAN tell us where is Dark Matter hiding?

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

    However, we DISAGREE that A VAST MAJORITY of it cannot be explained by the accepted theories.  This is because Einstein defined gravity in terms of the "depth" of an energy or gravity well in the "surface" of space-time caused by the energy density of an environment and NOT on the 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 that contribute to its energy density MUST be taken consideration when gravitational potential.

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

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

    Some might say, if true it should have an observable effect on the orbits of planets. The reason it DOES NOT is because it creates an offset in the gravitational field of a solar system which would be equal to the energy it provides

    One can understand why by using an analogy of the potential energy of water in well where its level represents the gravitational potential of visible matter and depth the water represents the quantity provided by electromagnetic energy.  One would measure the depth of an object floating on its surface in terms of how far it was below the top of the well while defining the total potential energy of the well by adding to it how far that surface was offset by the water. 

    As was mentioned earlier Einstein defined TOTAL gravitational potential in terms of the "depth" of gravity well in caused by the energy density of an environment

     Therefore, similar to the example of well mentioned above one would measure the depth of the gravitational potential experienced by a planet "floating" on the "surface" of a solar system in terms of the depth the visible matter is below its top of that "surface" while defining its total gravitational potential by adding to it the offset created in it by the electromagnetic energy contained in a star.

    However this means to determine the total gravitational potential contributed to the universe by the gravity well of a star one must add gravitational potential caused by the energy density of its electromagnetic energy to that contributed by its visible matter.

    Some may say if true a black hole would contain twice the mass or gravitational potential than it does because as was mentioned earlier if electromagnetic energy prevents the visible matter in stars from collapsing to one think it should contribute to that potential when it collapses.  However, it does NOT because its collapse is the result of the electromagnetic energy supporting it being radiated into space therefore it would not contribute to its gravitational potential. 

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

    The remaining Dark Matter may be contained in black holes or interstellar dust particles.  However, the fact we can UNEQUIVOCALLY determine how much of it locked in HEALTHY stars WILL help us determine if its are enough account for it or if not, we have to less obvious sources. 

    For example, electromagnetic energy not only contributes to the gravitation potential of stars as was shown earlier but also to creating it in the interstellar space is moving through and therefore to the total gravitational potential of the universe. Granted the energy of one unit of electromagnetic energy may not contribute much but in large enough numbers they would make up a significant portion of dark matter which would effect the predictions of its future.

     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 its value.

*****

24 Electron diffraction and the downfall of Quantum Mechanics

    Physics is an observational science whose purpose is not only to explain what we observe but what it is and why we can observe it. For example, for almost 2000 years the geocentric model of the universe was able to successfully predict planetary orbits. Its downfall was caused in part by the observation the moons of Jupiter did not revolve around the earth and the fact Johannes Kepler was able mathematically define the laws of planetary motion that agreed with observation in terms of them orbiting the sun. However, those laws only define how a planet moves in terms a mathematical point called the center of gravity but does not define what it is.

    For example, the observation that we can move on the surface of the earth tells us it has volume bigger than the point which defines its center of gravity.  Putting it another way it requires at least two pieces of information to fully describe a particle, object, planet or universe. The first is its position which can be defined in terms of a mathematical point in space and the second is information about how it interacts with its environment such as a person walking on it. That tells what is it.

    Quantum Mechanics has been very successful at describing the position of particles in terms of a mathematical point.  However, that does NOT mean it defines what they are.

    The fact particles such as an electron can be diffracted supports that conclusion because it is impossible to explain that in terms of a point particle that has no volume. Another observation is that particles are observed to collide in particle accelerators. This could not happen if they had no volume.

    However, there are many who feel the mathematics of the wave function that defines that point also gives us a complete description of what a particle is.  However, if true they MUST be able use a mathematical property of it to explain how the point it defines as a particle can collide with others in particle accelerators or create diffraction patterns.  If they cannot, they MUST repeat MUST accept the DOWNFALL of the idea that the wave function gives a complete definition of a particle and accept the that it can only define its position.

    As was mentioned earlier it requires at least two pieces of information to fully describe a particle, either it its position or momentum and how in interacts with its environment.

    Quantum Mechanics provide one, the position of a particle but as was just shown it cannot not tell what it is or how it interacts with its environment.

    However, a core principle of Quantum Mechanics is that a particle's position can ONLY be define only in terms of probabilities.  This means one can understand what a particle is in terms of its core principle if one can define how interacts with its environment to create those probabilities.

    One way of doing this would be to use the fact the interactions in both quantum and space-time environments are defined or controlled by waves. 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 probabilistic evolution of the point defining a particle's particle position may be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave that governs evolution in space time.  If true one should be able to derive it those probabilities in terms of the interaction of that point with space-time.

    One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the observable 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 and why Quantum Mechanics can define energy in terms of quantized units of space time.

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

    However, it also tells us 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 probabilities associated with the point Quantum Mechanics define as its position but an interaction of an electromagnetic wave with the physical properties of space-time.

    However, IT ALSO tells us the reason particles collide in particle accelerators or create diffraction patterns is because they have and extended volume defined by the mathematical properties of the wave function.

    Not only that, it shows the probabilities Quantum Mechanics associates with the position of a particle is the result of the fact it defines them in terms of a mathematical point in space which would be randomly distributed with respect to a center of the standing wave which earlier defined a one.  Therefore, the randomness of where that point is with respect to a particle's center will result in its position, when observed to be randomly distributed in space.  Pitting it another way 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 it is not necessary to use probabilities in Relativity is because those deviations are average out by the large number of particles in objects like the moon and planets.

    As was mentioned earlier it requires at least two pieces of information to fully define a particle, object planet or our universe.  The first is its position the second what it is or how it interacts with its environment.

    As was shown above NEITHER Relativity or Quantum Mechanics CAN do both on their own.  However, if we combine them, we can create Theory of Everything which will explain BOTH the quantum properties of particle and the relativistic properties of our universe.

*****

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

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

    Therefore, to define ALL the properties of antimatter in terms of the field properties of space-time one must first define how it evolves to produce both particles and antiparticles and then explain why our universe is made ALMOST ENTIRELY OF MATTER.

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

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

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

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

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

    Similar to water if a particle causes a portion of "surface" of space-time to become depressed it will result in a portion of it to become elevated enough to exactly make up for that depression. While if a portion of the "surface' of space-time elevated by an antiparticle it will result in a portion of it to become depressed enough to exactly make up for that elevation.

    As was mentioned earlier Einstein defined a particles mass in terms of a curvature cause by increase in its energy density

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

    For example, in a standard computer two bits can hold one of four values at any time: “00,” “10.” “01,” and “11.” Therefore, at 2 billion operations per second, a standard 64-bit computer would take around 400 years to cycle through all its possible values.

    Qubits, on the other hand, can hold a zero, a one, or any proportion of both zero and one at the same time. An array of qubits can use superposition to represent all 2^64 possible values at once, allowing a quantum computer to solve problems that are practically impossible for standard computers.

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

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

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

    However, one must be careful not to make HASTY assumptions as to why because knowing more about the physical properties of the operating environment of a device can greatly streamline the design of everything from 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 ones that might be used to create a qubit.

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

    Einstein told us the observe distance between the measurement of the end points of objects or particles in motion would be relativity shorter in direct relationship to their velocity from the perspective of an observer who is measuring how far they have traveled. In other words, the faster particles are moving relative to the observers the distance they have traveled will appear to be shorter than they measure it to be.  Additionally, his math tells us that distance will be zero for any object or particle moving at the speed of light.

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

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

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

    However, as was show above Einstein Theory of Relativity provides an alternative explanation as to why with respect to photons, which is just a valid as the one provided by quantum mechanics.

    Since as was mentioned earlier it is one of the foundational concepts of quantum computing knowing which one of them is responsible will give engineers a better understanding its strengths and limitations and will hopefully allow them to design systems that will take better advantage of them.

    HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A QUANTUM COMPUTER CANNOT BE MADE even if entanglement is a relativistic property of space because the physical properties of all particles such as spin can overlap or be entangled even if their physical properties overlap.  For example, the de Broglie wavelength which defines a particle length in terms of its wave length tells us that all quantum entities would be entangled if the distance between them is less than that value. Therefore, any particles that are closer to each other than that would be entangled.

    (There is an experimental way to UNAMBIGUOUSLY determine if entanglement is a result of the relativistic or a quantum property of space.  This is because if it was found entanglement ceased when the relativistic distance between the end points of an observation when viewed from the perspective of a particle moving slower than the speed of light was greater than its De Broglie wavelength 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.)

    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?

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

    However, another way in which black holes could have contributed to its expansion that does not have its origins in a singularity but in rapid release of a black hole energy by Hawking Radiation.

    Some will probably say that is it crazy to assume Hawking Radiation can cause its rapid expansion however we think it is crazier to assume that it began as a single one-dimensional point called a singularity.

    Cosmologists have not yet determined if the universe will keep on expanding or enter a contraction phase. However, if it does enter one the science of thermodynamics tells us its temperature would rise dramatically as it contracted.

    However, as its temperature rises the rate at which Hawking radiation would be released from black hole would also increase.  This would result in increasing the universe's temperature and creating a positive feedback loop that would result in exponential increase in its temperature. The energy released by a single one would only result in a small increase in that rate. 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 VERY VERY large temperature increase over a very short period of time and therefore a rapid expansion.

    Putting it another way it is not necessary to assume each cycle starts out from a singularity before expanding as Sir Roger Penrose did but to assume that it began by the Hawking radiation emitted from large numbers of black holes.

    One advantage to basing a model on the release of the energy in black holes by Hawking radiation 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 and number of the black holes in universe AT THE TIME OF ITS COLLAPSE based on how many presently exist and how many will be created when all of the stars use up their fuel and collapse to one.  This would allow one to estimate its rate of its expansion from its very beginning based on their numbers and rate at which their energy would have been released by Hawking Radiation.

    To determine if this idea is a creditable solution to its origins, one must FIRST determine if heat would cause an increase in the rate at which Hawking radiation is emitted.  After that one maybe be able to determine the rate at which the universe expanded based on how rapidly that increase would cascade though all of the remaining black holes in the universe. 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 based on observations of the present universe.  If its present expansion rate agrees with that value, it should increase its creditability. 

    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 and the “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology“ model.

 *****

28. Einstein's block universe fact or fiction.

        According to Einstein we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while 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 them but IN them.

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

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

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

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

    One reason why most humans perceive time as only a measure of sequential ordering of change MAY be because similar to  length it is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located.  Putting it another way time MUST be define as measure of when an event occurred with respect to an arbitrary reference point attached to the sequence of the events it is a part of. 

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

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

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

    Yet, he provided another way to interpret the changes associated with the past, present and future when he derived the energy required for them to occur in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time. This is because it gives us a way to define how and why change occurs in terms of us moving IN space and time instead of moving thought static ridged blocks of it.

    One can understand why by using an example of two dots "living" on the surface of a balloon. The surface of the balloon will represent the "surface" of three dimensional space while the time dimension is represented by the space surrounding its surface.

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

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

    As was mentioned earlier, Einstein derived gravity in terms of a dynamic interaction between the space and time dimensions.  This means, similar to the balloon one can define the energy associated with change NOT in terms of its rigidity but in terms of its dynamic properties.

    Putting it another way one can define the changes most humans associated with time in terms of us moving IN a dynamic space-time environment instead of moving THROUGH rigid blocks of it.

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

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

    However, it also tells us why the laws of physics are perceived to reversible with respect to time even though they are NOT because in most cases they ONLY define the time for change to take place from where they are applied.  However, this would not be the case if they were anchored in the first event of the series such as the beginning of the universe.

    In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a dynamic "ball" of space-time as Einstein's definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why time MUST always move forward even though the laws of physics tell us it does not have to.

.*****

29. Quantum Tunneling in space time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yet as was also mentioned earlier classical wave mechanics tells us the most efficient way to store energy is in resonant system such as the standing wave. This tells us the energy in each level would most likely be stored in a resonant system or standing wave that has the energy associated with that level.

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

    Putting it another way the reason electrons do no fall into the nucleus MAY NOT be because Quantum mechanics tells us they are quantized but because observations of resonant systems and the law of conservation of energy tell us their energy can NEVER repeat NEVER be destroyed or as mentioned earlier disappear into the nucleus.

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

 ******

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

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 due to its probabilistic interpretation of wavefunction, many different ones exist simultaneously or is SUPPERPOSITIONED with respect to each other 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 simultaneously 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 Einstein 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 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 it being observed or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space where a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave which this confinement would create can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This explains the quantized or particle properties of a quantum existence in terms of the physical properties of the space time universe define by Einstein.

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

Putting it another way if the wave component of a quantum existence is prevented from moving unhindered through time either by physically interacting an observer in space-time it will create a resonant system or structure that would define a unique outcome in terms of a particle in the universe defined by Einstein.

Additionally, as was shown above one can define why the probabilistic interpretation of wavefunction does not mean all probable future outcomes of an interaction of a quantum environment with space-time one are SUPPERPOSITIONED or exist simultaneously exist because as was shown above the outcome of a quantum event can be define in terms of a specific outcome resulting from a dynamic interaction of the mathematical properties of the wave function with the observable properties of space-time.

*****

32. Why the arrow of time is irreversible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BUT THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

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

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

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

    This conclusion is supported by the fact the fact particles such as an electron can be diffracted because it is impossible to explain that if was a mathematical point that has no volume. Another observation is that particles are observed to collide in particle accelerators. This could not happen if they had no volume.

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

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

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

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

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

    As was mentioned earlier the discrepancy between the vacuum energy predicted by quantum mechanics and its observed value may be due to the fact that it applies the uncertainty principal to each and every mathematical point in space.

    Therefore, to understand why this discrepancy occurs one must show how and why that would NOT define the vacuum energy in quantum system.

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

    This means to accurately determine the vacuum energy in a quantum system one must FIRST define why one should NOT repeat NOT apply the uncertainty to the mathematical point defined by the wave function BUT TO energy "volume" of a particle.

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

    THIS IS BECAUSE IT DEFINES THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPAL AND WHY THE MEASUREMENT OF ANY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THAT VOLUME INCLUDING THE MOMENTUM OR POSITION WILL AFFECT THE OTHER.

    As was mentioned before quantum mechanics defines both momentum 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 the center of 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 its other component.

    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 means there will be less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less information left in its 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.

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

        As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics define the cosmological constant in terms of the summation of amount of energy in a point "volume" of space has as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principal

    However as was also mentioned earlier the point in space that quantum mechanics uses to define a system may ONLY be a hypothetical one used to define its evolution similar to how the center or gravity is used to define the evolution of objects in orbit.

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

    THERE ARE SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL WAYS OF VERIFYING THIS CONCLUSION.

    For example, we can determine the cross section and therefore the volume of a particle by the frequency of their collisions in particle accelerators. Then using that volume determine how many oscillators occupy a given volume and apply the uncertainty principal to them instead of every mathematical point to calculate the how much vacuum energy they would create. Then compare that value with the observed one.

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

*****

34. Should we allow math to define our existence or have it define our math.

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

    Proponents of this definition like Einstein focused on developing mathematical theories which not only quantified how gravity works in terms of a curvature in space-time but why it does terms of how objects in "our world" follow a curvature surface. Putting it another way they gave us the ability NOT ONLY to mathematical quantify "our world" but understand WHY and HOW one made up of space-time behaves the way it does.

    However, there is another definition of physics that assumes it should ONLY have to quantify what we observe and therefore we should NOT attempt to understand how and why it exists

    Proponents of this definition have developed a system of mathematics called quantum mechanics which ONLY quantifies what we observe. However, it DOES NOT follow the rules that define the behavior of "our world" because it assumes it exists in several superpositioned states at the same time which reduced to one when they are observed. Putting in another way they believe science should only be concerned with defining best way to quantifying observations and not about why or how they come about.

    However, we believe the ancient Greeks would disagree because as was mentioned earlier they defined a physicist as someone who was dedicated to NOT only quantifying "our world" but understanding how and why it behaves the way it does.  Therefore, they MAY not have felt comfortable in calling Quantum mechanics a valid theory of "our world" or its proponents physicists because they do not attempt to understand why it behave the way it does.

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

    However, because most if not all of the constants in the equations used to define its mathematical structure are derived from "our world" it is difficult to determine if it is a product of its mathematical structure or if that structure is a product of it

    But the math of quantum mechanics may not be the only one that can define how and why we observe what we do in "our world"

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

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

    This suggests there MAY be able to find another mathematical system other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics that can define why energy is quantize base on how it behaves in "our world".

    For example,the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through 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.

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

    As was mentioned earlier there are in most cases many ways to mathematically quantify both the number of apples on a table and what we observe in "our world". Therefore, we should not assume the solutions provided by quantum mechanics are the only ones that will make accurate predictions of its behavior.

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

*****

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

    The definition of a Theory of Everything is that it should completely define the physical properties of OUR universe.

    Before we begin, we should first determine how we what to do that. In other words, do we want find a universal equation to quantify what we observe or explain why we observe it or BOTH.

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

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

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

    For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table by assuming that originally there were 2 on it and 2 were added or there were 6 and 2 were taken away but only one defines how and why they actually got there. However, there is no way using math alone to determine how many apples existed before they were observed on the table. Putting it another way one CANNOT use only mathematical solutions confirm the assumption they are based on.

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

    However, if one does as Einstein did first try to explain how and why we observed what we do in terms of how things to interact in OUR universe and then derive the math to it one can be sure the solutions it defines are an observable aspect of it.

    This suggests if one takes approach the Einstein did in developing Relativity and apply it to the fact that energy is quantized one may be able to derive a Theory of Everything in OUR universe that not only explains why it is but also quantifies it in terms of the interactions of the observable properties of OUR universe.

    As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics developed its mathematical solutions on the assumption the particle properties of energy ARE fundamental. However, before the development of its theoretical structure no one attempted to determine if it was a secondary outcome of an interaction between the observable component of OUR universe.

    For example, in "OUR universe" observations, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through 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. Putting it another way one does not have to assume that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the only reason why energy in "OUR universe" is observed to be quantized.

    This shows even though we cannot observe what goes on in a quantum environment we CAN derive the math we use to describe its properties in terms of our observable universe. 

    As was just shown there MAY BE solutions to why energy is quantized; other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics which will give the same quantifiable results.   

      However, we can use the fact that different parts of our universe are interconnected to reduce the possibility of this happening.  For example, as was just shown we can use the observations of how wave energy moves through a macroscopic environment to derive its quantized properties in a microscopic one.  Additionally, this MAY also allow one to understand how different parts of our universe are interrelated  such as dark matter and energy thereby giving Theoreticians a blueprint for how to build a Theory of Everything.

    This suggests one reason it is so difficult to create one may be because physicists are focusing too much on quantifying what we observe and not enough time mathematically describing how its components interact to create those observations.

******

Free Website Hit Counter
Free website hit counter