A hypothesis considering Creation, Evolution and how physics should get involved
rewrite May 2013.
This rewrite, hopefully, removes blunders made in my last rewrite. I also point out that all previous comments have been deleted. I now moderate the site extremely draconically thus, anyone hoping to get a free advert should find it almost impossible or, at least, extremely difficult.
logging in is not necessary currently, and all anonymous messages are acceptable for consideration, but I still retain the right not to publish any that I choose to reject. Where there is what I consider as a relevant query then I will provide whatever answer I can.
End of Foreword
This hypothesis attempts to explain the fundamental construction of the universe. In doing so I have to discuss, rather critically, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein’s theory is a good mathematically modelled definition of the observations of relative velocities. In doing so it defines a static platform from which 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 accepting constant light speed which combines with the speed of every moving universal object; i.e. there is a need to dispense with Einstein’s basis of the unreal static observation point and to consider all objects to move around the universe without reference to any static position. This should all become clearer later.
I consider that light speed is adjusted physically, to maintain the energy mass equivalence defined by E = mc2 whenever it is necessary to do so. Although it is dependent upon adjustment, light speed is still a constant when measured, This just means that we can never ever measure it as any other speed but c m/s in vacuuo; always, no matter where we choose to do it. The reason is that it has been adjusted, at each environmental boundary, prior to the measurement. I am referring to c m/s as being the maximum speed of light in a vacuum; 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 am now 76.) 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 be based upon a common thread belonging to both photons and particles. 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 variable time and distance dependent upon the movement of each observed object is an unreality. It 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 array of objects which all appear to be in constant movement. Despite that being so, Einstein based the Special Theory of Relativity commencing with the definition of a zero velocity observation point; expanding a suggestion proposed originally by Galileo. All the common velocity between an observer and what that observer, observes 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, it follows that there is no modelled problem in considering measured light speed, in a vacuum, as always constant in that static observer’s position. Another benefit, within the model, is that since every observer, in turn, has 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. However which universe are we considering? When examining The Special Theory more closely it can be seen that Einstein is actually proposing as many mathematical universes as there are possible observation points, each static point of which can be considered as the static centre of its particular mathematical universe.
In what follows I am considering a laser beam as one photon thick. because it simplifies description.
Consider a single photon stream laser generator, positioned in a vacuum from which photons are going to be emitted. It is off. It is then switched on for a duration and then switched off again. There has to be a first photon (as well as a last one.) This first 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 of that until a measurement is made.) As each new photon is emitted it starts another new stream, inclusive of the previous photons in front of it. Whatever underlying object movement exists for the single photon at its birth this movement has to be catered for immediately, even if the underlying object‘s speed is variable. I claim; adjustment is out of universe. Later, as each photon crosses a boundary between two environments of dissimilar movements, then adjustment is, again, necessary. I suggest that this occurs when 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 consider the whole light stream as being attributed with 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.” 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 requires the time dilation equation and the Lorentz length contraction for objects observed as moving, but, in my opinion, these considered measurement changes are not reality.
It should be noted that although the definition is for a contiguous set of photons, from generation point to receiver, any particular photon in the stream could be in an environment which is dissimilar to the environment that any other photon in the stream is in. Since the speed of light varies according to the nature of the environment it is in, this contiguous set can be composed of subsets which travel at different speeds to each other. Thus what we have is a phenomenon considered as a unit but which is actually defined locally per environment even if not by the speed of that environment.
As an attempt to show that there is an element of incorrectness about considering the special theory as being reality then consider a thought experiment similar to the one mentioned previously. (Even Einstein used thought experiments):-
There is a single photon stream generator a long way from our Earth. It is switched on. After the passage of some duration it is switched off. The photons it produced are still travelling after that switch off point. They then have no dependence upon how they were generated. I now consider that each photon is going to pass through an enormous number of environments belonging to various objects whose universal rates of movement will be variable, and note: they are all definitely moving!! Strapped to each object to which these environments belong are containers, in the line of the stream, each containing a vacuum and a light speed measurer. If E = mc2 is to be believed then each measurer, using standard measures, will measure the light speed as 299792458 m/s in their particular vacuum. However, as the photon stream passes from one vacuum container to another, i.e. per object, then for measurement purposes each succeeding vacuum is declared as static, by the Einsteinian model. The photon stream eventually arrives at our Earth, where its speed is measured as 299792458 m/s in a “static?” vacuum. All this is irrespective of how objects external to each static observer are dealt with.
I have just described a thought experiment where light travels through many environments and where each, in turn, is declared, by Special Relativity as static and then the light arriving at a static Earth measuring point. Where did all the movement go?? Include all the moving objects and the model can cope. However, the set of static objects defined for modelling purposes are all actually moving through the universe!
As an alternative, I am proposing a mechanism which I claim is reality and which would embrace Quantum Theory as well as The Special Theory of Relativity. In essence my hypothesis attempts 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 functions. A wave function is just a mathematical method for graphing a cyclical set of occurrences. I consider that these wave functions are caused by photons oscillating in and 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 that 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. However, 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, very carefully, the implications of this document’s appendix.
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 it 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 then created our universe from out of that free thought. Part of free thought was converted into energy some of which was then 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, and vice versa, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to accept that “free” thought can become energy and with the reverse also being true.
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 to T (= thought) and then they move out of universe. They return converted and having been speed adjusted when travelling across boundaries between 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. Life, even though it is not perfect, is dependent upon programming via DNA. Again, I cannot conceive of such a structured feature occurring via serendipity.
We sit on a rock from which we would like to explore the various islands in the sea of space and by physical presence. I suggest that it would be almost impossible to move from the shallows we are in, 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 long 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!
What I am suggesting is 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 realise that 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!
(c.f. New Scientist December 10th 2011; entanglement on page 14.)
I know that all I have offered as the reasons behind the, always constant, measured speed of light contain 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.
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