These are copies of face book postings made by Jeffrey O'Callaghan

https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm

Please visit The Road to unifying Relativistic and Quantum Theories | Facebook << 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

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

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

3. Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell.

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

5. Quantum entanglement as defined by Einstein.

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

7. How should we define reality? 

8. Is it possible to derive quantum gravity in terms of the properties of space time?

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

10. Is a photon the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation or is it the basic unit of a photon.

11. Entanglement can tell us why the universe is what it is.

12. Is it possible that Gravity and the relativistic properties of space and time are responsible for Dark energy?

13. Deriving a photon and Electromagnetic waves in terms of the physical properties of space-time

14. Why the future is what it is.

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

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

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory.

20. Karl Popper

22. The double slit experiment made easy

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

26. Quantum computing made easy

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

 

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

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

In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a black hole its laws do not break down because it tells us time freezes at its "surface" or event horizon with respect to all observers. This means it must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to the one defined by the radius of it event horizon. Therefore, a singularity cannot form at its center because matter cannot continue to or collapse beyond that point.

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

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

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

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

However, it also tells us, the laws of physics developed by Einstein for a space-time environment are not violated in black hole with respect to all external observers because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field would not allow the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames\

 that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and Therefore, continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stopped with respect to all reference frames that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a star's surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein's theories indicate time in its external environment would become infinitely dilated or stop when the surface of a collapsing star reaches its critical circumference.

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

However, it also tells us, the laws of physics are not violated in black hole with respect to all riding on the surface of a star because the time dilation associated with its gravitational field the collapse of matter beyond its critical circumference to a singularity.

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

*****

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

In the earlier posting (1. Do the laws of physics break down in a black hole.<< https://theimagineershome.com/face_book_posings.htm >>) we defined what happens to matter and energy as it falls into a black hole in terms of inertial reference frames. However, we did not attempt to define what happens after that. The reason was because we must use Einstein's mathematical definitions of the curvature in the geodesics that define how mass and energy move in a space-time environment to do so.  They tells us that it would take an infinite amount of time for mass and energy to form singularity after passing through the event horizon of a black hole for the same reason we that observe it to take an infinite amount of time to reach it from the outside.

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

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

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

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

*****

3. Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell.

One of the difficulties in merging quantum mechanics with Einstein's Relativistic Theories is its predictive powers are based on the assumption the physical evolution of space and time determines the future while quantum mechanics defines it only in terms the evolution of the mathematical properties of the wave function.

To begin we should start with one of the most basic aspects of the wave function that defines Quantum reality

The physicist John Wheeler asked how can one best define that reality in five words or fewer? he determined the best answer was given by Aatish Bhatia “Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell."

This suggests that we must explain why Don’t look: waves. Look: particles defines the reality of a quantum environment in terms of the physical evolution of space and time.

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

(Einstein provided a mechanism for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he defined gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it.  This means one can define the propagation of energy associated it in terms of the alternating curvatures of the peak and valleys of one as it moves it.)

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

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

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

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

This also shows how one can merge the explanation of quantum mechanics given above of Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" in terms of the evolving space-time environment of Relativity.

For example, it explains why the act of looking at a quantum environment creates the confinement required for the creation of a standing energy wave in three-dimensional space which, as shown above is responsible for the quantize properties of particles in a quantum world.

Yet, if no one is looking the wave properties of that environment will be predominant because it is free to move until they are observed and then they will revert to the back their particle properties.

This shows how one can understand the validity of describing quantum mechanics as "Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" in terms of a deterministic evolutionary processes in a space-time environment.

*****

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

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

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

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

When he use the equation E=mc^2 to in his Special Theory of Relativity to define the equivalence between energy and mass while defining the gravitational forces associate with it in terms of the energy density of space he define mass in terms of a PHYSICAL property of of space-time.  The observation mass is converted energy in nuclear bombs verifies that conclusion.

However, the math he used to define gravitational accelerations in terms of a curvature in space-time also defines constant motion because that tells us that it cannot move through a region where the surface space-time is curved.

Putting it another way it tells us that constant motion can be ONLY be defined in terms of mass moving through level space-time.

Yet this also tells us to change its motion one must change the energy level it occupies in space-time.

This conclusion is supported by the observation the acceleration or a change in its state of the motion of a mass moving in a gravitational field can be defined in terms of the differential energies associated with the different levels of space-time it occupies as it moves along the mathematical curvature Einstein used to to define gravity.

However, that same observation suggests, a change in the constant motion of a mass could be define in terms of the force required to change the levels it occupies in space time.

Therefore, the math Einstein used to define the force of gravity could also define the force required to overcome the resistance mass has to a change in motion in terms of the energy difference between two layers of space-time. This is because as was shown his math already define the resistance to a change the state of the motion objects falling in a gravitational field.

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

*****

5.  Quantum entanglement as define by Einstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, this tell us (Please see attached graphic) that the separation between the observation points in a laboratory from the perspective of two photons moving at the speed of light would be ZERO no matter how far apart they might be from the perspective of an observer in that laboratory. This is because, as was just mentioned according to the concepts of Relativity one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

Therefore, to understand the dynamics of the uncertainty principle in terms of space-time we must first establish a physical connection between the mathematical evolution of the wave function and the properties of the space-time. This can be accomplished because in Relativity the evolution of space-time is defined in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was mentioned earlier the wave function defines how a quantum environment evolves to the point where it is observed.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. This means to derive the uncertainty principle in terms of it one must physically connect it to an electromagnetic wave.

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

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

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

As was mentioned earlier the mathematical properties of the wave functions defines the evolution of a quantum system in terms of its wave particle duality. However, as was shown above one can understand why if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because if it is prevented from evolving through space by an observation it presents itself as a particle.

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

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

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

Relativity and the science of wave mechanics tell us the energy of the standing wave which earlier defined a particle would be distributed over a volume of space-time that corresponds to is wavelength. However, to accurately determine its momentum or position one must be able to determine where those measurement are taken with respect to energy volume of the system it occupies.

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

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

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

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

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

However, the same would be true in a relativistic system because its energy is must be conserved when its position or momentum is measured. Therefore because, the accuracy of a measurement is directly related to the amount to energy taken out of a system; the measurement of each component of a Conjugate pairs will effect the other. For example, the added energy required to make a more accurate measurement of a systems momentum will result in there being less to define its position. This makes the determination of its position more uncertain because there is less energy in that system to define it. While the more additional energy required to make a more accurate measurement of its position will result in there being less to define its momentum. This makes this determination of its momentum more uncertain because less energy left in the system to define it.

This shows how one can understand and physically connect the uncertainty principal as defined by quantum mechanics to the space time environment define by Einstein.

*****

7. How should we define reality? 

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

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

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

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

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

However, others define reality in terms of deterministic proprieties of cause and effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines reality in terms of probabilities, which means each probabilistic outcome becomes a reality in the future.  However, it also means, as also mentioned earlier 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 properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled.  In other words, what defines the reality getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.  Putting it another way. the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

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

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

Similarly, just because quantum mechanics describes the interactions of a quantum system with the universe 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. Is it possible to derive quantum gravity in terms of the properties of space time?

As the Scientific American article "Is Gravity Quantum?" tell us quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave as define in terms of the mathematics of the the wave function. For instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak and therefore detecting them is extremely difficult.

Einstein, on the other hand defines gravity terms of the a curvature in space-time caused by its energy density while using light or the properties of electromagnetic waves in the equation E=mc^2 to define the mass equivalent of the energy.

Therefore, to derive quantum gravity in terms of space-time one 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 is what defines the evolution of gravitons.

This commonality suggests the wave function could be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time. This means to derive quantum gravity in terms of space-time one must physically connect it to an electromagnetic wave.

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

One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the concepts of Einstein's theories to define both the energy density of space responsible of gravity and the particle properties of mass and the graviton as defined by quantum mechanics in terms of an electromagnetic in space time.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact Relatively tells us the energy of an electromagnetic wave 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 thereby increasing the energy density at the point where that collapse occurred. 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. Therefore any changes in that energy density must also be quantized.

This shows if one assumes the wave function is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time one can explain quantum gravity and why its is made of gravitons or quanta of energy in terms of physical properties of space time. This is because, as was show above if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through it either by being observed or interacting with something its energy collapses to what quantum mechanics calls graviton. This would make a quantum increase in the energy density of space where the collapse occurred and therefore would make a quantum increase the curvature in space-time that relativity defines as the causality of gravity. Additionally it tells us the curvature in space time which Relativity defines as being the causality of gravity is not continuous but quantized because the energy density that creates its can only be increased or decreased in the quantized units defined by the mathematics of the wave function.

*****

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

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

Specifically, Einstein determines the position of particles in terms of where a distortion in space-time caused by increase in the energy density in the space where it 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 deterministic it can be explained in terms of a physical interaction between space and time.

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

Therefore, to integrate the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function in terms of the deterministic properties of space 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 evolutions 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.

(Einstein provided a mechanism for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he defined gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it.  This means we may be to derive the probabilistic environment of quantum mechanics to the deterministic one of Einstein if we can show how an physical interaction between space and time is responsible for those probabilities

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. This means we should be able to derive the probabilistic environment of quantum mechanics in terms of the deterministic properties of an electromagnetic wave in space time.

One can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the concepts of Einstein's theories.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact Relatively tells us wave energy 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. However, the particle created when someone observes an electromagnetic wave 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 wave function but the the deterministic interaction of an electromagnetic wave with an observer.

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

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

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

*****

10. Is a photon the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation or is it the basic unit of a photon.

12. Is a photon the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation or is it the basic unit of a photon.

Many define a photon as basic unit of an electromagnetic radiation and therefore assume it is mass

less because if it wasn't it could NOT moved at the speed of light. But if it has no mass it also has no energy because Einstein equation E=mc^2 tells us energy is equivalent to mass. Therefore, they need to explain how it propagates through space. Some have used a mathematical argument the equation E=mc^2 is a special case of the more general equation: E2 = p2c2 + m2c4 which for a particle with no mass (m = 0), reduces down to E = pc. Therefore because photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore 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 cannot move at velocity of electromagnetic radiation.

This conclusion is supported by the observation made in particle accelerators the mass of particle increases as motion does validates the equivalence between mass and the energy of motion

Another problem with assuming a photon has momentum is explaining why it slows down when it enters a denser medium and then regains its speed when leaving. For example, we can observe when electromagnetic radiation enters a denser medium it slows down and then speed up as it leaves. Granted some have tried to explain it in terms of the the conservation of momentum by assuming the emitted photon must bear the same momentum as the incident one.  However, as was mentioned earlier if a photon has momentum it also must energy and mass therefore it cannot move at the speed of light.

Putting it another way any suggestion that photon can be the propagator of electromagnetic energy cannot assume that it contains any form of energy INCLUDING momentum because that means it also has mass which cannot move at the speed of light.

However if one assumes electromagnetic radiation is propagated by a wave in space-time instead of the particle called a photon one can use the science of wave mechanism to explain both of the issues mentioned above.

(Einstein provided a mechanism for the propagation an electromagnetic wave through space-time when he defined gravitational energy in terms of a curvature in it. This means one can define the propagation of its in terms of the alternating curvatures of the peak and valleys of one as it moves it.)

The science of wave mechanics tell us wave energy moves from one location to another while the particles of matter in the medium return to their fixed position.  Putting it another way a wave transports its energy by communicating its movement to the next particle along it velocity vector without transporting matter.  Similarly a wave in space-time would not move the mass or energy associated with the energy of the peaks and valleys of its wave properties instead it would communicate that movement to the next unit of space-time along it velocity vector. (The term unit of space-time referrers to a section that is equal to the distance between the peaks and trough of a wave in the continuous field properties of space-time.)  This allows one to explain how electromagnetic radiation moves by assuming it is not moving either the mass or energy Einstein associated with a peak and valley of its wave properties but by communicating it to the next unit of space-time along its velocity vector.

However, as was mentioned earlier it is also difficult to explain in terms of the photon the observation of how the density of a material affects the speed that a wave will be transmitted through it. In general, the denser the material, the more slowly a wave passes through it and as it leaves it in most cases it regains the speed it had before entering. Glass is denser than air, so a light ray passing from air into glass slows down. We can also observe that it returns to the speed of light as it leave the glass.

However, by assuming that electromagnetic radiation propagated by a wave AGAIN allows one to use the science of wave mechanics to  define how it effects its velocity.  This is because it tells us it is defined only in terms the elastic properties of the medium it is moving and p or its density.  Therefore, it allows one to explain why its velocity increases when it leave a denser medium without have to assume as was mentioned earlier the conservation that it is related to the momentum of a photon

Yet it also allows one to explain why ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION IS THE BASIC UNIT OF A PHOTON NOT THAT A PHOTON IS  THE BASIC UNIT OF IT because it tells us its wave energy would 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.

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 another way one can explain a lot more of the observed properties of electromagnetic radiation if one assumes that it is propagated through space-time in the from of a wave instead of a photon.

****

11. Entanglement can tell us why the universe is what it is.

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

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

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

Since these two concepts are diametrically opposite, if one can define the mechanism responsible for entanglement in terms of either one it would invalidate the other will help us to understand why our universe is what it is.

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

As was mentioned earlier quantum physics, assumes ALL entangled particles, not only photons remain connected so that actions performed on one immediately affect the other, even when separated by great distances.

While Einstein tells us that instantaneous or faster than light communication between to particles is impossible.  However, he also told us the distance between two objects or points in space is defined by their relative motion and that there is no preferred reference frame by which one can define that distance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, one MUST ALSO use another core principle of quantum mechanics defined by De Broglie that particle are made up wave with a wavelength defined by λ = h/p to determine if it or Einstein's theories define how the universe works. This is because it tells us all material particles have an extended volume equal to there wavelength

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

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

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

However, this gives us a way to DEFINITIVELY determine which one of these theories defines the reason for entanglement because we can precisely define the wavelength and therefore the volume of a particle by, as mentioned earlier using De Broglie formula λ = h/p while one can determine the relative distance between the observation points from the perspective of the particles being observed by using Einstein formula for length contraction.  If it is found entanglement DOES NOT occur if that distance is greater than a particles volume then it would invalidate the core principles of quantum mechanics that two particles or molecules share on a quantum level one or more properties such as spin, polarization, or momentum no matter how far they are separated.  However, if it is found that entanglement does occur even if the separation was greater than their volume it would invalidate the core principals of relativity that no information can be transferred faster that the speed of light.

In other words, it gives us a doable experimental that will UNEQUIVOCALLY tell us if Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's' theories define why the universe is what it is

IT CANNOT GET MUCH SIMPLER THAN THAT.

12. Is it possible that Gravity and the relativistic properties of space and time are responsible for Dark energy?

Dark energy is the name given to the force that appears to be causing the universe's expansion to accelerating.  One explanation, as is show below is that it is the result of the relativistic properties of space as defined by Einstein.

Einstein tells us and it has been observed the rate at which time moves is slower is all environments where the gravitation density is greater than where it is being observed from. This means, the further we look back in time, where the gravitational density of the universe was greater the slower time would move and for events to occur from the perspective of the present than they actually did.  In other words, this would suggest that it evolved faster in the past and therefore is younger than the present value suggests if considers the Relativistic slowing of time when determining the expansion rate of the universe.  

However, we also know the gravitational density of the universe has a nonlinear slowing effect on its expansion because its attractive properties decrease as its  volume increase due to its expansion.   In other words, the gravitational density has an opposite effect on its expansion. Therefore, to determine the actual the rate of expansion of the universe at each point in its history one must not only take into account the time dilation due to its gravitational density but also the slowing effect that density has on its expansion at each of those point.  In other words, one makes it APPEAR to move slower while the other faster.

Yet, because of the non-linear effects between the time dilation created by its gravitational density and the effects that density has on the universe rate of expansion there will be a point in its history were one will APPEAR to overtake the other MAKING IT APPEAR AS IF ITS EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING. 

The fact that it has been observed that about 4 billion years ago the universe's expansion change from decelerating to an accelerated phase gives us a way to verify the above hypothesis.

For example, if one calculates the expansion rate of the universe by taking into account the APPARENT speeding up of its evolution resulting from the increase rate at which time passes due to the decreasing gravitational density of an expanding universe and finds that it counteracts slowing effect cause by that density about 4 billion years ago it would go a long way to verify the above mechanism.

Some may say that gravitational time dilation would not effect the timing of the expansion because it is  also expanding.   However, Einstein define the time dilation only in terms of the effects of a differential gravitational potential has on it therefore an expanding universe will have not effect it. 

Some have suggested because the universe is expanding the gravitational density 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 in the past is locked along with the gravitation density of the universe at the time the expansion took place  Therefore, we must measure the the timing of the events that define the them from the perspective of the gravitational density when we look at when those events took place.

Others may also say the time slowing effect as discussed in this post is introduced in this calculation, the age of the universe might come down heavily.  This would be true if time was the only factor that must be considered when defining the rate of the universe expansion. For example the gravitational density of the universe would not only effect the passage of time but also it would cause a slowing of expansion due to its attractive forces.  Therefore, to define its actual expansion rate one must take into account both slowing effect of gravities attractive forces and the effects it has on time.  The apparent change over to an accelerating universe occurs because of the non-linear relationship that gravity has on time and the expansion rate.  It is possible if one takes both the magnitude of gravity attractive force has on the universe expansion rate and time dilation on its expansion we may discover that it is older than the currently accepted value  of 13 billion years.

*****

13. Deriving a photon and Electromagnetic waves in terms of the physical properties of space-time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOWEVER, ONE CAN ALSO SHOW IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF A PHOTON IF IT IS PREVENTED FROM MOVING UNHINDERED THROUGH TIME.

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

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

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

*****

14. Why the future is what it is.

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

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

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

In other words, classical mechanics tells us that only one future exists while quantum mechanics tells us that due to its probabilistic interpretation of wave-particle duality of existence, many different ones exist simultaneously and which one become a reality is determined by observation.  Additionally, it states that they are randomly disturbed throughout existence.

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

However, that may not be the case.

As mentioned earlier, one of the things that separate the future associated with classical physics from probabilistic one of quantum mechanics is one tells us all of the probable future outcomes of an observation exist while the other which based on causality tells us there in only one.

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

Similarly, just because Quantum mechanics defines outcome of an observation in terms of probabilities would not mean all the of the predicted futures exist if the probability of a specific outcome is caused by a physical interaction of the wave-particle duality of existence with the universe it occupies.  In other words, like the dice, it is possible the wave-particle duality of existence does not define the future of the universe the universe defines the future of its wave-particle component.

However, to understand how this is possible one would have to show the probability of a specific outcome of an observation is related to the interaction of the wave-particle duality of existence and the space it occupies.

To begin we must first establish a physical connection between the wave function and the physical properties of the space-time universe define by Einstein.  This can be accomplished because he defined its evolution in terms of an electromagnetic wave while, as was 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 probabilities quantum mechanics associates with a particle's position in terms of it one must physically connect its evolution to the mathematical properties of the wave function.

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

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

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

The final step in answering the question of why the future is what it is requires one to show how the quantum mechanical wave-particle duality of existence interacts with space to create the future in terms of probabilities.

One can use the analogy of the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm and how the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at their focal point and decrease as one move away from it to explain why it must define the future in those terms that would be true.

This is because, if the assumption the wave properties of a quantum existence represents vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space, is correct the magnitude of those oscillations would be greatest at the focal point and decreases as one moves away from it.

However, as was shown earlier the particle property of existence as defined by Quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of a resonant structure formed by its interaction with the time dimension.

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

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

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

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

In other words, one can define the future of the quantum mechanical wave-particle duality of existence in terms a causal interaction between it and the universe it occupies.

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

Putting it another way, the reason why the future is what it is is because the wave-particle duality of existence does not define the future of the universe the universe defines the future of its wave-particle component.

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, many proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis believe the abundance of the light-elements in today universe, helps to verify it because it can be used to predict it. This is because both theory and observation have led astronomers to believe the light elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while the elements heavier than helium 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 depended 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 they must base the values of both those parameters on the observed abundance of the light-elements in today universe. Therefore, the reason why the big bang hypothesis can define the abundance of the light-elements in today universe MAY be because their abundance is used to determine its temperature and expansion rate while that temperature and expansion rate is used to define their abundance

However, as was mentioned earlier one could determine when the heat or radiation pressure generated by its collapse would become great enough to cause it to expand.

Yet by using that value and the laws of thermodynamics one could determine its temperature and rate of expansion at each point in its history even before the CBM was created. This means one could use them to predict the abundance of hydrogen and helium present in the early universe based on observable properties of our universe instead of estimating it based on their abundance. If these values agree with their current values it would have a tendency to verify this mechanism as was outline above for both the origin of our universe as well as the CBM.

Putting it another way, there is another explain of the "anisotropy" in the Cosmic Background Radiation and the abundance of the lighter elements other than the one promoted by the Big Bang theory which is testable based on the basis on observations of our present universe.

*****

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

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

On the other hand, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity tells us a particle is made up of the energy/mass created by a distortion in space-time. 

Therefore, to derive the probability amplitudes of quantum mechanics in terms of the physical properties of space-time one must not only explain why an observation causes the wave function to materialize as a particle but also why one must use probabilities to define the where it appears in terms of the physical properties of space-time.

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

To begin we must establish a physical connection between the wave function 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 mentioned earlier the wave function represents how a Quantum environment evolves to create a particle.

This commonality suggests the wave function is a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave in space-time.  This means to derive the Probability amplitudes associated with a particles position in terms of space-time one must physically connect its evolution to the mathematical properties of the wave function.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

18. The errors in the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small 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 Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.

The idea the universe was smaller in the beginning was supported by Edwin Hubble in 1929 it 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 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. This period is referred as the age of "recombination".

Additionally, they predicted this Cosmic Background Radiation or what was left over from the age of recombination would have cooled form several thousand degrees Kelvin back when it was generated 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 as an expansion of in an infinitely dense hot environment because one would expect it and the Cosmic Background Radiation to be homogeneous 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 NASA's WMAP satellite showed the universe is not and therefore, 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 "anisotropy" in the universe are caused by quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space. They define quantum fluctuations as a temporary change in the energy of space caused by the uncertainty principle.

However, there is an error in the math used to predict both effects the expansion of singularity at its origin and quantum fluctuations in the energy density of space would have on the evolution of the universe.

Einstein mathematics tell us time slows as the gravitational or energy density increases and will eventually stop if it becomes great enough.  While observation of black holes provides verification of his math because it is observed that time does slow to a stop when it reaches a critical energy density at its event horizon.  Additionally, Schwarzschild was able to use Einstein's math to calculate the radius of a black hole were the energy density would be great enough to stop time.

This means the math used by the proponents of the big bang is INCORRECT if they did not include the effect the energy density around a singularity or quantum fluctuation would have on its evolution.

This is because observationally verified math of Schwarzschild tells us there is a minimum radius the total energy content of the universe can occupy for time to move forward. Since evolution cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped that is also MINIMUM RADIUS of the universe which could expand form which IS larger than a singularity.

In other words, if they had included 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 effect the rate at which time passes but they would be wrong because Einstein's tells us it is only related 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.  This point would define the minimum volume it would have to have before its expansion could take place.

However, there is a similar error in the math behind the assumption that quantum fluctuations are responsible for "anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation because energy could not expand from one because the energy density surrounding it would cause time to stop.  Therefore, quantum fluctuation 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 wrong again because the mathematics of Einstein tells that when the energy density reaches a certain level time will stop.  It does not say that an increase beyond that point will allow time to move again.

As was mentioned earlier, current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and model

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, we could develop a mathematically model which would tell us when the heat generated by its collapse would be enough to cause it to re-expand.  Additionally, one could determine if that heat occurred AFTER that required to free protons and electrons from each other thereby allowing another age of "recombination" when it started to re-expand.

This would also give mathematicians the ability to more precisely determine the age of universe because we can observe when age of "recombination" occurred and project back from that point in time to when the additional heat generated by its continued collapse was great enough to cause it to re-expand.

In others words we have the ability to define the origin of the present universe and anisotropy" in Cosmic Background Radiation in terms of a mathematical model based on real time observations of the present universe. 

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 is predictions based on the observable properties of our present universe or one that defines it origins in terms of the unobservable properties of a singularity.

19. Mathematics verses observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of the equipment they used to define them.  However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem with it because, at least on earth, objects "naturally" follow a curve path NOT one composed 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 in  if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved 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 tell 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 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. 

One way of reducing the possibility of this happening would be to use observations from the earth of how systems evolve similar to the way the Greek, Indian and Muslim savants mentioned earlier did to define the math instead of using the math to define their evolution.

Scientist must realize that that math is only a tool to define the evolution of observations not a replacement for it.

20. Karl Popper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Black summed it up

‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any

hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination,

but does not advance our knowledge.’

****

22.  The double slit experiment made easy

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

However it also allows one to understand the physical connection between quantum mechanics and the space-time universe of Einstein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As was mentioned earlier one can use the above to demonstrate the physical connection between quantum mechanics and the space-time universe of Einstein. 

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

This means a portion of its energy could simultaneously pass both slits, if the diameter of its volume exceeds the separation of the slits and recombine on the other side to generate an interference pattern.  This would occur because wave energy is allowed to move freely through time.

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

Additionally because the energy of the standing wave which earlier was shown to define a photon is dependent on its frequency the energy of the particle created when it contacts the screen must have the same energy. Therefore, were it appears on the screen will be determined by where the interference of the wave properties from each slit combine to produce enough energy to support 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. this is because the energy required to measure which one of the two slits it passes through interacts with it causing the wavelength of that portion to change so that it will not have the same resonant characteristics as one that passed through the other slit.  Therefore, the energy passing thought that slit will not be able to interact, in most cases with the energy passing through the other one to form an interference pattern on the screen.

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

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

However, this also means there should be a quantifiable minimum value of interaction between a measuring device and a photon that will permit the interference pattern although somewhat altered to be reestablished on the other side after measuring which slit the photon passes through.

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

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

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

This suggest the reason it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field is because a large part of it is an electromagnetic field.

However, the observation that electromagnetic energy prevents the gravitational collapse of the visible matter in stars suggests that its gravitational potential is oppositely directed with respect to it.

Some might say, if that were true it should have the same effect on the orbits of planets as it does on stars in galaxies. The reason it DOES NOT is because, as was just mentioned with it opposes that of visible matter which prevents it from sinking to the bottom of a star's gravity well. 

One can understand why by using an analogy of a jar containing water and oil where the water represents electromagnetic energy while the oil represents that of visible matter.  The water prevents the oil from sinking to the bottom because its directional energy is opposite or is more buoyant than the water. This would be analogous to how the heat associated with electromagnetic energy prevents the visible matter in stars from sinking to the bottom of their gravity well.  In other words, the energy density of electromagnetic energy offsets that of the visible matter.

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

Therefore, to determine the total gravitation potential or depth of the gravity well of a solar system one must add the energy density associated with both electromagnetic energy and its visible matter.

However, to define the gravitational potential on objects which are gravitational bound to a star one would have to use only the visible matter because as mentioned earlier electromagnetic energy offsets that of the visible matter.  Therefore, any objects gravitational bound to a star would only experience the gravitational potential of the visible matter because the gravity well of the entire solar system is offset by the electromagnetic energy.

However, one can also use the example of the jar mentioned earlier to understand why stars orbiting in galaxies are affected by both the energy density of electromagnetic energy and visible matter.  One outside the jar would add the height of the oil to the water to get its total height while from the inside one would measure it from the oil water line. Similarly. if one views the gravity well from an object orbiting a solar system one would have to use only the energy contributed by the visible matter.  However, if one viewed it form an object that was NOT gravitationally bound to it one would have to measure the contribution provided by both the visible matter and electromagnetic energy.

This also tells us any form of energy that counteracts that of visible matter must also be consider a component of the Dark Matter.  For example, the orbital of the stars in a galactic would have to be included because it also adds to the energy density of the space they occupy.   In other words, not only do you have to add the energy density contributed by electromagnetic energy to that of the visible matter in stars but you must also add the orbital energy of both the visible matter and their electromagnetic component to determine its content in galaxies.  Additionally, the fact that galaxies are gravitational bound in galactic clusters means you must also consider the energy density contributed by their rotational energy to determine the universe's total Dark mater component.

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

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

26.quantum computing made easy

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

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

Entanglement is important because it allows one to remotely view the properties of the individual components of the qubit. For example, it you apply an outside force to two atoms, it can cause them to become entangled, and the second atom can take on the properties of the first atom. So, if left alone, an atom wi.ll spin in all directions. However, the instant it is disturbed it chooses one spin, or one value; and at the same time, the second entangled atom will choose an opposite spin, or value. This allows scientists to know the value of the state of an individual components of in a qubit by observing its entangled companion without actually looking at or disturbing the qubit

The fact that entanglement exists has been experimental proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, one must be careful not to make hasty assumptions as to why because knowing more about the physical properties of the operating environment of a device can greatly streamline the design process of everything from transistors in modern computers to the Qubit in a quantum computer.

In 1935, Einstein co-authored a paper with Podolsky–Rosen which came to be called the EPR Paradox. Its intent was to show that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature. The first thing to notice is that Einstein was not trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics in any way. In fact, he was well aware of its power to predict the outcomes of various experiments. What he was trying to show was that there must be a "hidden variable" that would allow Quantum Mechanics to become a complete theory of nature.

The argument begins 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.

With this situation in mind, Einstein asked the question: what happens if one makes a measurement on system A? Say, for example, one measures the momentum value for it. Then, using the conservation of momentum and our knowledge of the system before the interaction, one can infer the momentum of system B. Thus, by making a momentum measurement of A, one can also measure the momentum of B. Recall now that A and B are spacelike separated, and thus they cannot communicate in any way. This separation means that B must have had the inferred value of momentum not only in the instant after one makes a measurement at A, but also in the few moments before the measurement was made. If, on the other hand, it were the case that the measurement at A had somehow caused B to enter into a particular momentum state, then there would need to be a way for A to signal B and tell it that a measurement took place. However, the two systems cannot communicate in any way!

If one examines the wave function at the moment just before the measurement at A is made, one finds that there is no certainty as to the momentum of B because the combined system is in a superposition of multiple momentum eigenstates of A and B. So, even though system B must be in a definite state before the measurement at A takes place, the wave function description of this system cannot tell us what that momentum is! Therefore, since system B has a definite momentum and since Quantum Mechanics cannot predict this momentum, Quantum Mechanics must be incomplete.

In response to Einstein's argument about incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics, John Bell derived a mathematical formula that quantified what you would get if you made measurements of the superposition of the multiple momentum eigenstates of two particles. If local realism was correct, the correlation between measurements made on one of the pair and those made on its partner could not exceed a certain amount, because of each particle's limited influence.

In other words, he showed there must exist inequities in the measurements made on pairs of particles that cannot be violated in any world that included both their physical reality and their separability because of the limited influence they can have on each other when they are "spacelike" separated.

When Bell published his theorem in1964 the technology to verify or reject it did not exist. However, in the early 1980s, Allen Aspect performed an experiment with polarized photons that showed that the inequities it contained were violated.

This meant that science has to accept that either the reality of our physical world or the concept of separability does not exist.

Many would prefer to assume the separability defined by Newtonian physics does not exist instead of the reality of our particle world because without that "reality" Einstein and many others believe science would have little meaning.

However, measurements Allen Aspect made on polarized photons that showed that Bells inequity was violated appeared to verify the concepts of quantum mechanics assumes the act of measuring the state of a pair of entangled particles instantly affects the other no matter how far they are apart. In other words, the Newtonian concept separability does not apply to quantum environment.

However, one must be careful not to extrapolate the unique properties of a photon like the fact that they are the only particle that moves at the speed of light to other particles that make up the qubit.

We believe Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were aware of this special property of a photon because they specified in the description of their experiment "two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles)” not just a photons because they knew that Special Relativity gives us a reasons why they would entangled which were different from those given by quantum mechanics.

Einstein told us that the observe distance between the measurement of end points of objects or particles in relative motion would be shorter in direct relationship to their speed from the perspective of those objects or particles. In other words, the faster particles are moving relative to the observers the shorter the distance between the end points of those observations will be from their perspective. At the speed of light he tells us the distance between the end points of any and all measurements will be zero from the perspective of any particle moving at the speed of light. However, he also told us that due to the relativistic properties space and time there is no special reference frame by which one can measure distance. Therefore, one would be justified in measuring the distance between the end points of the observation from the perspective of the photons as well as from the laboratory environment where they are being observed by humans. Yet as was just mentioned he also tells us since photons are moving at the speed of light the distance between the end point of the measurements made between all human observers in the universe no matter where they are must be is zero. However, because all of the confirmation entanglement involves the properties of photons, we must look at the world from their perspective and not form those of human observers. In other words, Einstein specified "two free particles" not just photons because he knew the reason they would be entangled is because the distance between the end points of all measurements made by humans from perspective of all photons would be 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 is show above Einstein Theory of Relativity provides an alternating explanation as to why with respect to photons, which is just a valid as the one provided by quantum mechanics. Since it is one of the foundational concepts of quantum computing knowing which one of them is 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.

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****