A hypothesis considering Creation, Evolution and how physics should get involved
rewrite March 2012.
This hypothesis attempts to explain the fundamental construction of the universe. In doing so I have to discuss Einstein’s The Special Theory of Relativity, although it is accepted as a good mathematical definition of the observation of velocities. In doing so it also defines a platform from where the speed of light, as measured, must be c mathematically; always. I consider that as being insufficient. It is necessary to propose a method of constant light speed in a way that encompasses reality rather than an imagined observation point which is assigned as having a zero velocity when it hasn’t. This hypothesis claims that light speed of c m/s is actually adjusted depending upon every movement of the mass where it is generated; both for constant mass movement and irregular mass movement. It is also adjusted for any medium it passes through. This will become clearer later. I consider that light speed is adjusted to maintain the energy mass equivalence defined by E = mc2 whenever it is necessary to do so. This adjustment is such that we could never observe measured light speed as other than c. Although dependent upon adjustment, light speed is still a universal constant, which just means that we can never ever measure it as any other speed but c; always, no matter where we choose to do the observation. For the purposes of explanation I am referring to c as being the speed of light in a vacuum; its maximum speed where c = 299792458 m/s. Any streams of light I refer to are laser streams unless defined otherwise. If my hypothesis is correct then it is a hypothesis which would apply to both the micro and macro environments of the universe.
End of summary.
I obtained a physics degree late in life, triggered by a dialogue with a professor I wrote to. He suggested that if I wanted to query physics then I should obtain a degree in the subject. I did and was awarded my physics degree by the O.U. in 1999 at the ripe old age of 63. I also went on to study the modules Space Time and Cosmology as well as Quantum Theory. The outcome of this was that my belief in my own hypothesis was increased.
The essence of my hypothesis is that there must be some form of connection between the universe at a particle level and the universe as a number of conglomerations of particles both of which must relate to photonic radiation. I consider that our universe must all be based upon a common thread of photons and particles. I consider that the enduring solidity of the universe around us is belied by current quantum theory. Einstein’s model produces useful and predictive results. Its use of time and distance suffices for the model but in my opinion it is not the reality that physicists often claim.
When we consider the universe around us we are confronted by an immense mass of objects that all appear to be in constant movement. Despite that being so, Einstein based his The Special Theory of Relativity on the zero velocity observation point; a suggestion proposed originally by Galileo. All the common velocity between an observer and what they observe is allocated to the observed object. This has beneficial modelled results. One important aspect of the model is that when modelling the observation point as static then it follows that there is no modelled problem in considering measured light speed as constant. Another benefit, within the model, is that since every observer, in turn, is defined with a common definition for an observation point then only if all observers agree with each other can a definition be considered for being a law of the universe.
My opinion is that although Einstein gave physics a fantastic tool he also obscured some facts about the universe. Let me try and illustrate this using what Einstein would’ve called a gedanken experiment.
Consider a tubular spaceship moving away from some origin. The tube is open at both ends. I am going to consider 2 scenarios.
In scenario 1 a laser beam comes from the same origin as the tube and the laser beam passes through the tube. This laser is travelling at c m/s for space and is not subject to any influence from the tube. The tube and laser beam are separate entities. If the tube is travelling at 0.9 c then by the time the light travelling at c reaches the other end of the tube then the observed tube can be considered as chasing the photons of the beam at c – 0.9c = 0.1c. Seems reasonable to me that the tube can be observed as chasing a light beam without catching up with it and with the light never covering any distance at other than c for space.
I used the origin for the laser beam as the same as the tube just to emphasise that the origin of that beam has no influence on the measured speed of the laser beam in this scenario. However, no matter where a light stream comes from or where its speed is measured then it will always be measured as c = 299792458 m/s in vacuuo.
In scenario 2 consider a laser generator bolted on to the rear of the tube, and pointing towards the front of the tube. Every photon emitted from that generator must always travel at c for space for as long as the laser beam exists. This generated laser beam will always go in the direction of the tube’s travel. The tube is supposed as travelling at 0.9c relative to its origin. I am going to consider the tube’s length as being of no consequence whatsoever. As observed; Einstein would consider the tube as having a contracted length relative to its origin as well as having slower passage of time. I say let it have any length whatsoever. As well as the generated laser beam in the tube there is also another laser beam in the tube from the same origin as the tube, (or it could be any other origin) if considering light speed measurements. This laser will pass freely through the tube at c for space. There is also a laser beam from that same origin, or any other, travelling at c for space alongside the tube.
Thus the generator light, appears to have a compound speed of 1.9c because although the generated beam must have a speed of only c for space, this generated beam also appears to be carried by the tube at 0.9c. The generator laser photons appear to be able to achieve any ultimate destination distance sooner than the two non-captive laser streams external, and internal, to the tube because of being carried. However, none of the three laser streams will ever travel at any other speed but c, for space when measured, as moving in the tube, outside of the tube, or anywhere else, for that matter.
It is considered that The Special Theory of Relativity is required to relativise the tube using contractions of its length and the slowing of time passing for the observed tube, thereby ensuring that the in tube generated laser beam speed is reduced whereby the apparent carried speed of 1.9c is then just c. This method is used to maintain the relative speed of the generated beam, wherever measured, to c. This would be despite the fact that there is never, ever any actual usurping of light speed of c, for any of the three laser beams. The extra speed of the carrying is never additive to the actual stream of light. Why?
Almost every theory that exists in physics treats light as emanating from its generation point as either a continuous straight line, stretching out from the origin of generation just like an infinitely extensible elastic band, or similar to an infinitely extensible rubber balloon, when light is considered as emanating from a point. When considering a laser beam I am considering it as one photon thick. because it simplifies description.
To treat this laser beam as attached to its generator and as being a continuous stream merely confuses the fact that it isn’t. Light and its speed needs to be independent of the generator. Nevertheless most people still subscribe to theories that are dependent, implicitly possibly, upon the extensible elastic band type definition, or extensible rubber balloon type definition of light. In the scenario of the generator bolted to the tube then treating the laser as synonymous with such an infinitely extensible elastic band attached to its generator, with the generator moving at 0.9c confuses that velocity with the speed of light unless, as at present, The Special Theory of Relativity is used in an attempt to eliminate that confusion of additive velocity and speed; an additive, which does not actually occur. Even with The Special Theory of Relativity the concept of the elastic band syndrome is not eliminated, or even the rubber balloon syndrome when that is discussed.
There is a piece of geometry which can be found on the Wikipedia site showing a diagram describing the derivation of the time dilation equation and how light is supposed to react to movement. It uses Pythagoras to obtain Einstein’s time dilation equation. What should strike you immediately is that the light beam shown in the diagram is a continuous straight line. It shouldn’t be. The light stream should be a broken line composed of many, possibly zillions, of photons.
Consider a laser generator from which photons are going to be emitted. It is off. It is then switched on. There has to be a first photon. This photon has either been recycled or has never ever been in our universe before. It is a birth. It marks the start of a light transmission. Our assumption would be that it begins its life with a speed of c wherever it starts out. (We cannot be certain until a measurement is made.)The second photon is emitted. It is the birth of a new stream As each new photon is emitted it starts another new stream, inclusive of previous photons. There has to be a gap between any two photons such that any underlying movement of the generator emission point and also the underlying movement of the new stream in its entirety is eliminated; even if the underlying movement is irregular, in medium dependency, or even just part of it. (The birth of a spherical coincident set of photons marks the start of a new light sphere.) Considering the laser, then whatever underlying movement exists for the single photon at its birth has to be catered for immediately. (same with the sphere) As I claim; adjustment is out of universe. Photons oscillate in and out of our universe. This produces a light frequency which is merely the rate at which the photons oscillate in and out, even though most physics considers the whole light stream is attributed as having this frequency. In general this is a reasonable approximation. The speed of light is so enormous that any fairly small extent of a light stream we consider must be composed of a vast number of photons all engaged in this production of “the light frequency.”
In terms of the second scenario of the tube: consider that as the tube travels from origin to destination the first photon is emitted at time t. Consider the length of the travelled path broken down into points where photons are born, thus starting a brand new light stream. If the photon interval is dt then a new stream is started after each t + n.dt. In essence this is a set of zero velocity birth points of each new stream, because there is a boundary where a zero speed (non existence) becomes an instantaneous speed of c; i.e. for a photon.
When what is being said here is analyzed the conclusion must be that, in reality, light speed does have an adjustment dependency upon the movement of its source to define each new stream (or sphere.) Once each new stream is moving then it may require adjustment on a media basis especially since it can span a number of media. When measuring light as it arrives at any point the light stream has always been adjusted prior to that measurement. It means that it is still, always, c per medium no matter where measured and, therefore, still a universal constant of c. How is the adjustment achieved?
What I claim does appear to be scientific heresy. The Special Theory of Relativity model, with its assumed zero velocity observation point, caters for light speed in a way that must require the time dilation equation and Lorentzian length contraction, but these are not reality. I am proposing a mechanism which I claim is reality and would which embrace Quantum Theory as well as The Special Theory of Relativity. In essence my hypothesis is going to attempt to explain what I consider this mechanism to be and how I consider it must be related to Creation. This, in turn, must be linked to evolution and thence also to the overall purpose of our universe. It is a daunting task. I may not get across all I want to but I am going to try.
I consider that, since the universe had a start point then it must have been created. Whatever the causative factor was that was responsible for its creation that causative factor has to be entitled “Creator.”
The reality I am considering involves the common particle/photon wave function. A wave function is just a mathematical method for graphing a cyclical set of occurrences. I consider that this wave function is caused by photons oscillating in an out of our universe after their birth points. It also applies to particles, which also have wave functions. This cycling in and out of universe is used by the intelligence behind the universe to maintain the energy mass equivalence.
My first assumption is, therefore, that there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe. There is very little actual proof, so it remains, mostly, a very personal opinion. Nevertheless, there is much about our existence which is so finely balanced that the word serendipity becomes much overused with respect to our existence. I could continue attempting to justify my belief, but I know, and anyone who reads this knows, that we cannot state with absolute certainty that the universe was started by intelligent creation and that it also exists for a purpose. Indeed, without purpose the human race could be likened to a parasitic infestation of the Earth! I can only outline my opinion. I hope that it refers sufficiently to scientific probability. In addition, although it is not part of my main arguments, I think that any reader should consider the implications of this document’s appendix very carefully.
There are a number of physicists who are considered as being capable of providing sensible explanations of us our universe and what surrounds it. Of their suggestions the most bizarre are multiverses and extra dimensions, as well as time travel. Although my suggestion concerns a Creator I consider it to be less bizarre than those suggestions. We exist so there must have been some sort of beginning, even if just for life. Rather than consider our universe as part of a long chain of creations, cyclical, embedded, or whatever I consider that it is a primary creation.
When considering the pre universe state then I propose that the Creator is insubstantial, intelligent and is the whole of the pre universe state. It did not require to be created because it was never out of existence and is the primary existence. The only description, that I can conceive, is that the Creator consists only of thought and this entity of free thought planned and created our universe from out of that free thought. This was converted into energy some of which was converted into particles of matter and particles of electro magnetic radiation. We do not seem to have a problem accepting that energy can convert to matter so it shouldn’t be too difficult to accept that “free” thought can become energy.
Science demands at least a modicum of proof. Consider a small number of possibilities. When trying to pinpoint a particle of matter there are times when it cannot be detected. This gives rise to the theory that there is only a probability of detection, i.e. the quantum model. Where is it? I define: It is out of universe? When a stream of single photons (or particles) is fired through a double slit diffraction grating there is an indication that there is still a wave function involved. My opinion is that this could indicate an in and out of universe cyclic property of both photons and particles. When photons are fired through the double slit diffraction grating there appears to be instances of a photon going through two slits at the same time. This could be because it leaves the universe at one slit and re-enters at another in a way that leaves two traces on the target. Entanglement could be caused by communication of spin being transmitted out of universe and then back in at some distance away. Particles which, in theory, shouldn’t be able to go through a potential barrier but do could be out of universe on one side and back in at the other side. Current theory claims that most of the universal mass is not there when observations are made so dark mass was propounded and even dark energy. Could the missing mass just be that which is out of universe at any instant?
I am a retired operating systems designer implementer. I could not contemplate there being a thought out implementation of an intelligently designed system without including mechanisms for maintaining and improving the system. It is for that reason that I have proposed that photons and particles oscillate in and out of the universe. Photons do so in order to ensure the mass energy equivalence is maintained; always. Photons are converted back to energy and then T (= thought) and move out of universe. They return converted and adjusted when travelling through media of dissimilar movements. Particles of mass also oscillate in and out of the universe. This is why they are also observed to have what is defined as a wave function. This also gives a degree of control on the mass of the universe should it ever become necessary.
One of the attempts of biologists at disproving intelligent creation is the computer simulation. What these eminent scientists are disregarding is that they are using intelligent thought for designing and then implementing these computer programs which are not entirely random. These programs have to follow the logic of their creators. If the program paths were entirely random; i.e. not designed; then the odds of achieving a simulated evolution would be very, very slim indeed. I consider that this lack of total randomness also applies to our designed and implemented universal reality.
We sit on a rock from which we would like to explore the sea of space by physical presence. I suggest that it would be almost impossible to move from the shallows, unless we get a helping hand. If there is no designer of the definition I have suggested then we will always be restricted to an extremely small sphere of existence. This is also recognised by most writers of science fiction.
From our current limited observation points the scientific catalogues will be full before we are extinct and without any expansion science and, especially, art would stagnate. We need to leave our solar system by circumventing what we observe as immense durations even for light speed. Not being able to spread throughout the universe would be contributing to a certainty of the eventual extinction of our species. We, as our forefathers before us, very much need to expand our horizons if we are ever going to have a fully meaningful existence!
I am suggesting that it may become possible to place all elements of an object into All Thought by some means; possibly some form of resonance effect. Then All Thought could place them in their original state elsewhere. I am echoing the writers of such as Startrek. Nevertheless, without such a facility we are just giant hamsters in our revolving cage. We need my hypothesis to be correct!
Who knows? There might be intelligent existences who already have this facility!
I know that all I have offered as the reasons behind the constant measured speed of light have an element of opinion, and conjecture, but if we are ever going to understand our existence, together with a reason for it, then both Science and Theology will need to be more open minded and willing to put everything they consider to be truth back under the microscope until a holistic set of considerations emerges.
B.Sc. Tech. Electrical Engineering (Manchester 1960)
B.Sc. Physics with Natural Sciences (Open University 1999)
Anyone who disbelieves that intelligent creation has taken place should attempt a very, very simple piece of origami. After doing it reflect upon what you would do if you had been responsible for the universe and how you would leave some indication of your presence. What you make of this origami is entirely up to you. However, I challenge anyone to attempt to dismiss my definition as exaggeration. Is it just one of life’s little, or even large, coincidences. The design follows after this text
I give you my definition: Assuming that there was no messing about with any fundamental aspects of the universe between its inception and the here and now, then the possibility of performing this origami was present at the dawn of particular solidities of the universe. If it was due to any changes in the (mathematical perhaps) construction of the universe then it is even more wondrous than if the possibility was simply waiting for a rectangular medium that could be folded and then torn or cut; not necessarily paper.
There is absolutely no doubt that the significance of this origami would not be there if an event described as occurring in zero B.C. had not acquired significance. It would also not have had any significance if language had not evolved and also if the word HELL had not acquired its meaning The most exceptional aspect is that the significance depends upon that word acquiring a very well defined meaning with respect to the crucifix.
As a secondary (or tertiary) aspect: There is another oddity, which is that many young boys, in the UK, at least, have used most of the folds of this origami to produce paper aeroplanes. I do not know who discovered the origami but its more general use for that purpose certainly enhanced its probability of being discovered. Of course: Who or what could have anticipated the dawn of the aeroplane and the urge to produce paper ones?
1) We start with the sheet of paper folded in half vertically and then opened out again giving AEBDFC with fold EF
2) Point A is folded to meet BD giving BAD
3) Open up and fold until point B meets line AC giving ABC.
4) It is now shown opened up with extra salient points.
5) AEB is folded about GJH to meet LM
6) The line shown as JHBM is now pushed towards JE until coincident with JE. Similarly JGAL is pushed towards JE until also coincident with JE
7) Now fold in half and tear off two vertical strips WY and the XZ and going through all the bits underneath.
When you examine what you have there will be a crucifix shape and all the leftover bits will all be used to spell out the word HELL!
To leave any comments click on replies below. Any fields which are then requested are entirely optional
This is a note to point out that this site has had to resort to moderation. The problem is that too many contributors are no more than advertisers. New entries for posting will be examined before posting. A large number of previous postings have been deleted. If yours was one of them and you were a genuine contributor then please accept my apologies.
I said in my last posting, that this replaces: “I doubt I could state my case much clearer.” Whilst lying in bed a few more thoughts occurred to me as to why Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is so successful and why it is accepted, erroneously in my opinion, as a reality.
First and foremost is the fact that we measure light speed using the metre and the second of time. Light speed is not only measured by these definitions, light speed is now used to define them. That is because the speed of light, in a vacuum, has been defined as an exact value of 299,792,458 metres per second. It is an absolute feature of the universe that wherever the speed of light is measured in a vacuum then it will always have that value, defined as the constant c m/s. By definition it must be a constant else E=mc2 would not be true and the universe would fall apart.
However, think about it. For the requirements of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity we require that the speed of light is a constant wherever we measure it (and it has to be considered as in a static measuring point.) We measure the distance light travels using the metre. Wherever we measure the speed of light we use its exact speed to define that metre. Similarly each second of any time which passes is defined by the duration of the photons covering a metre. For the mathematics it’s a win-win situation. Putting this in an allegoric way it amounts to me telling you what you must do and then you defining how I must define the activity so that you will always be successful.
With regard to the speed of light this is an insufficient way to consider it. The definitions of the measures and the use of them must be decoupled and always be two distinct activities.
Consider two identical masses travelling on parallel paths and the one diverging from the other. From wherever the two are observed their divergence will be observed as such. If they are A & B then, as currently considered, by relativity, object A will observe B as moving away from them and similarly B will observe A as moving away from them. Each of A & B will measure the speed of light in a vacuum as 299,792,458 metres per second. Although the relativisation can be applied what is happening in the universe is that they are each contributing to the divergence. Neither is static. The divergence occurs because they have different absolute speeds. Absolute I define as relative to, “or even Just as known to,” the universe.
When photons enter either of the environments of A or B then any measuring system we concoct will determine that the speed of photons in a vacuum in A will be the same as the speed of photons in a vacuum in B. Looks like a fairly simple statement. However, how do we define “measure?” That’s where the complication sets in and relativization starts. These objects, A & B are not actually dependent upon each other but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity mathematics considers each from the position of the other.
It is necessary, in terms of reality, to consider the existence of A and also B, independently, with respect to the universe. It is easy to make that statement but far from easy to do it. The objective is to show that, whilst A & B are both moving, the duration of a photon in a vacuum in A, across a portion of the universe has the same duration as a photon, in a vacuum, across an equal portion of the universe in B. Thus we can define the constant c. This is what could be called the primitive definition for what has evolved from relativity mathematics and a lot of people will wonder why I am bothering to define it like this.
The problem that I see is that it should be necessary to consider A, always, as moving through the universe towards an imaginary distant line alongside B which also moves through the universe towards the same line. As defined, neither is actually stationary. This can be considered in the same way as two athletes running towards a finishing line. Each is moving. One is faster than the other and therefore draws away. If each could carry a measure of light speed in a vacuum using the same measuring system then the result would be c m/s for both. They are relative to each other in one respect, but the track is their universe and the only speed which has significance overall is what speed they achieve with respect to that track towards the finishing line.
That is a clumsy way of putting it but I do so to point out that Einstein’s mathematics, for a situation such as this, finds it necessary to have consistency from every possible observation point in the universe to be incorporated and that means a vast number; zillions actually. If there were only one defined observation point i.e. the universe, as per the track for the athlete, then how do we do it? My answer is that I do not know how, but it should become a necessity to achieve it because reality is very important.
In my definition of objects A & B at the start of all this I do know that A is moving through the universe and so is B because that’s how I defined it! I have no objection to determining a model where time has to be dependent upon movement mathematically and because an observer is artificially declared to be stationary in order to do it. My objection is to the acceptance of this as a reality.
Since the reality is that each of A & B are moving towards a distant line that has to be the real consideration. If each of A & B carry an experiment to measure the speed of light in a vacuum then each photon involved only has to cater for the dissimilar movements of each vacuum in the experiments. I point out that the dissimilarities of the passage of time on each of A & B, in relativity, are only necessary because of the artificial mathematical cessation of movement of each when considered as a stationary observer, although not actually stationary. When each is considered as moving in the same time frame, i.e. as far as the universe is concerned, then some other property must be considered. It could be that the universe is ”aware” and adjusts photon speed accordingly. This assigns a form of intelligence to the universe. However, why not, as I have said as part of the hypothesis I have formulated, consider that the oscillatory properties of photons and particles takes them in and out of the universe to receive the adjustments. Quantum Theory determines that there are points where it is impossible to find a photon or particle ( where is it?) and current theory has determined that universal mass is less than it should be. Where is the missing mass?
(As well as catering for the maximum speed of light the lesser constant light speeds in more viscous environments also have to be catered for and light can pass through many of these on the way from generation to measurer!)