Download One Force of Nature

The One Force of Nature
Unification of the Forces is Wrong
By David Simmons
Smashwords Edition
Copyright © 2016 by David Simmons. All rights reserved.
###
Contents
Introduction
Abstract
Chapter 1: In the Beginning
Chapter 2: The Nuclear Forces and the Quark Theory
Chapter 3: The Standard Model
Chapter 4: The New Big Bang
Chapter 5: Transcript of "The First Second" Video
Chapter 6: Multiverse
Chapter 7: Quantum Fluctuations
Chapter 8: Cosmic Inflation
Chapter 9: Matter and Antimatter
Chapter 10: Fundamental Particles
Chapter 11: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Chapter 12: Photon-photon Collider - May 2014
Chapter 13: Radioactivity
Chapter 14: Pauli's Exclusion Principle
Chapter 15: Homing Pigeon Navigation
Conclusion
About the Author
Introduction
In one of his public lectures, Lawrence Krauss, of Arizona State University, used this quote
"The initial mystery that attends every journey is how did the traveller reach his starting point
in the first place?" by Louise Bogan in Journey Around My Room.
My interpretation of this is that the traveller is the scientist in this context; the journey is the
path of discovery; and the starting point is the starting materials/knowledge that the scientist
used to derive his discovery. So before we can discuss the discovery, we must get to know
how his starting materials came to be.
Krauss's book "A Universe From Nothing" implies that his starting point is "Nothing". Then
he tells us that if you take all the matter and energy from space, you're left with nothing. But
that nothing weighs something; empty space is a bubbling, boiling brew of virtual particles
that become real for a fleeting amount of time and disappear before we can measure them.
This is allowed by the laws of physics particularly the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
(HUP).
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was supposed to show that there's an absolute
minimum error in any measurement because the act of measurement interferes with what's
being measured. It was not designed to allow creation out of nothing. Yet scientists
unashamedly use the HUP to falsely claim that creation out of nothing is allowed by the laws
of physics when it isn't. How long are we going to tolerate these false statements?
Louise Bogan was right - the starting point is the most crucial point of any journey of
discovery. Krauss's starting point is a lot of space that has virtual energy sometimes known as
zero-point energy or vacuum energy. At t=0, there was no space hence no vacuum hence no
virtual particles to use the HUP.
Since the laws of physics breakdown at t=0, sometimes called the singularity, no scientist can
explain the creation of the universe from nothing as it violates the conservation laws.
Lawrence Krauss simply wanted to make a lot of money out of this controversy. This means
that some scientists will sell their souls to the devil for a fistful of dollars. They already do
that when endorsing products in adverts.
So, the starting point for this book is t=0 where there was no space, no vacuum, and no
vacuum energy. Since you can't make anything from this type of nothing, I have to start with
something. I arbitrarily chose energy as my starting point. But how did that come about? I
can say I don't know; all the other scientists say they don't know either. However, it did get
there; religions say that God created it - let there be light - and we know that light is a form of
energy. Scientists are implying that it just happened by an as yet unknown mechanism.
Let us discuss the current theory of the evolution of the universe and we may conclude that
any explanation is based on definitions and assumptions that may turn out to be wrong. This
is the path that science takes whereas religions are stuck with unchanging scriptures; maybe
their interpretation can change at least according to St. Augustine.
I will begin with a précis of the evolution of the universe from energy to the formation of
atoms. Then I'll define individual concepts in greater detail and end with descriptions of some
phenomena from my perspective.
Because I’m introducing alternative explanations of my own to current theories (2016) that I
consider to be inadequate, I have to specify the assumptions and rules that govern how I
arrive at the alternative explanations:
1. All matter is made of charged particles.
2. Forces cannot exist without matter.
3. Laws that describe the action of forces on matter and laws that lay the ground rules.
4. Space and Time are separate, invariant, and eternal.
5. Space is not curved and cannot be curved.
6. Matter occupies a finite volume i.e. no singularities.
7. Length contraction and time dilation don’t happen because of invariance (item 4).
8. Kinetic Energy (KE) and Electromagnetic Energy are 2 different types of energy
9. KE cannot be converted into mass - only electromagnetic energy can.
10. Any theory that uses zero quantities or infinity is invalid e.g. photons are not massless.
11. Everything in the universe is made of particles including electromagnetic energy.
###
Abstract
Current theory claims that there are 4 fundamental forces of nature which existed as a
symmetrical superforce at t=0 i.e they all had the same strength. These are Strong Nuclear
Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, and Gravitational Force. They existed as
a 'jewel' that was symmetrical. Then the symmetry was broken and the 4 forces separated.
In 1932, Carl Anderson experimentally proved that gamma ray photons split into electronpositron pairs for which he won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1936. Physicists at Imperial
College London built a photon-photon collider where low energy photons collide, coalesce
and split into electron-positron pairs. This means that the primeval energy split into electrons
and positrons from which protons and neutrons were made. The electrons and positrons
formed the plasma not quarks and gluons.
Protons and neutrons would have positrons as a nucleus orbited by electrons just like atoms.
The protons will have one excess positron and neutrons will have equal numbers of electrons
and positrons. When they bond to form nuclei, they do so electromagnetically. So, the strong
and weak nuclear forces are manifestations of the electromagnetic force which implies that
gravity is a manifestation of the electromagnetic force i.e there's only one force of nature. So
unification was the wrong method to derive a Theory of Everything. In fact, I believe that
electricity and magnetism shouldn't have been unified in the first place as they seem to act
independently. This is important for Ampere's law.
I will go on to explain a lot of the natural phenomena, in terms of the electric and magnetic
forces, like radioactivity, Pauli's Exclusion Principle and how pigeons navigate using the
earth's magnetic field. I believe that much of the 20th Century was wasted so I'll be using
19th Century physics as well. My theory and explanations will be non-mathematical and
don't require higher knowledge than high school physics.
This means that the current Standard Model of both particle physics and cosmology are
wrong because their foundations, the quark theory and the nuclear forces, are wrong and that
there are no strong and weak nuclear forces; at best, they're manifestations of the EM force. It
seems that Quantum Mechanics (QM) has very little to do with the Standard Model yet
scientists speak as if it does. I suppose it's to do with borrowing huge amounts of energy from
the quantum vacuum for the W and Z particles that are used to convey the weak nuclear
force. Similarly, General Relativity (GR) also has very little to do with the Standard Model.
Scientists are trying to unify QM with GR to derive Quantum Gravity and all they're getting
is an infinity of infinities. Scientists speak about the Standard Model + GR.
Although I'll be writing separate books on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I'll mention
them here to compare and contrast with the evidence for the one force of nature. In my
forthcoming books, I'll be converting the probabilities of QM into proportions of
electromagnetic fields to explain orbital formation and the Pauli Exclusion Principle in my
book on Quantum Mechanics; and in my book on Relativity, I will describe how Galilean
Relativity reigns supreme and Einstein's versions are superfluous; and how General Relativity
mimics the equipotentials of the Newtonian gravitational field. Once gravity is accepted as an
electromagnetic phenomenon, GR will cease to be used for anything. Wishful thinking I
know.
###
Chapter 1: In the Beginning
“… to me that is the highest and most sacred duty—unifying physics. Simplicity is the
criterion of the universe.”
- Albert Einstein
And you can't get simpler than One Force of Nature.
Richard Lighthouse, in his book "Preliminary Model for Grand Unified Theory (GUT)"
"Einstein's model of the universe included all of Newton's concepts, while extending them.
Any new model will need to include Newton's ideas, Einstein's ideas, and other recent ideas
that have some experimental evidence in laboratories.
If a new model is to be formulated, it would need to explain a mathematical relationship
between the fundamental forces:
Including
1. Electromagnetism
2. Gravitation
3. Strong Force
4. Weak Force
and ideally include explanations for time travel, antimatter, and parallel universes."
In what way is that simple?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein
My theory uses only one force; hence there's no need to accommodate gravitation, strong and
weak forces apart from explaining them in terms of the electromagnetic force. As for time
travel - it's impossible. Antimatter is ill-defined as I shall explain later; and parallel universes
don't exist and neither does the 4th dimension which is required for Einstein's theories to
work, which I'm not considering in this book. It means that string theory, in all its versions, is
also false.
In the beginning all the fundamental forces of nature existed as one symmetrical force known
as the 'superforce'. Then the symmetry began to break and the force of gravity separated first
leaving the other three as a Grand Unified force. Then the strong nuclear force separated
leaving the electroweak force - this is the unification of the electromagnetic and the weak
forces. Finally, the weak nuclear force separated from the electroweak force leaving all 4
fundamental forces separate as we know them today.
This implies that the forces have an independent existence as entities that have to be created.
In my theory, the underlying assumption is that a force can only exist if there's matter or at
least energy available for it to act on. For example, the electrostatic force comes into being
when electric charges are around; the magnetic force comes about when an electrically
charged particle moves. Hence forces come into existence when matter comes into existence
at the same time. To understand this, we have to study how all the matter in the universe got
created. This is described by the Big Bang Theory:
According to the mainstream Big Bang theory, in the beginning (t=0) there was nothing: no
space, no vacuum, and time hasn't started. They call it the singularity. Then an infinitesimal
amount of spacetime appeared out of nothing. Although they don't say it, the vacuum
appeared at the same time as spacetime complete with vacuum energy. Then spacetime began
to expand thus creating more vacuum. The vacuum was increasing exponentially as
spacetime was increasing linearly thus the vacuum energy was increasing exponentially as
well. They can't explain how this happens because the laws of physics fail at the singularity.
They don't even know what a singularity is. "It's a term to hide our ignorance" said Michio
Kaku of City University of New York.
This implies that spacetime is made of virtual energy but, because it's expanding
exponentially and has the potential of becoming real energy, it's violating the principle of
conservation of energy i.e. the first law of thermodynamics. I can accept the fact that
scientists can't explain what happened at the singularity; but what about after? How did the
expansion of spacetime occur? No answer.
At the same time, they say that General Relativity (GR) explains it precisely. It makes
predictions; not explain how spacetime got created nor how the vacuum energy got into the
vacuum. GR is an abstract mathematical equation not a physical theory. Any derivations of
physical descriptions based on the solutions to GR are subjective and depend on individual
interpretation of the solutions. Just like St. Augustine said about the scriptures.
Scientists say that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) enabled the virtual energy to
become real as matter-antimatter particles for a small amount of time and then disappear out
of existence. The appearances and disappearances of this energy are called quantum
fluctuations (QF).
The HUP violates the first law of thermodynamics on 2 counts: it allows creation then allows
destruction contrary to the law - energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.
Then one of these QFs inflated faster than the speed of light so that the matter and antimatter
particles were so far apart that they couldn’t annihilate each other. Inflation needed a
substance that has negative pressure and repulsive gravity and that negative pressure
remained constant even as the universe volume kept increasing. This means that the
substance that has negative pressure and repulsive gravity kept increasing – the ultimate free
lunch as its author, Alan Guth, once described inflation.
Clearly, this is a gross violation of the Principle of Conservation of Energy whichever way
you look at it. It's an excuse to create oodles of energy without proper explanations that
comply with the laws of physics. Inflation violates the HUP by separating the matter and
antimatter particles so far apart that they can’t annihilate each other. Then the scientists tell us
that the matter and antimatter do annihilate each other – doesn’t this meet the HUP
requirement?
Furthermore, the product of annihilation is energy which remains in the universe i.e. it doesn't
disappear out of existence but lay people swallow this hook, line, and sinker. Hence, this
explanation doesn't satisfy the requirement of the HUP which requires the energy to
disappear out of existence. This means that the HUP, if complied with, violates the Principle
of Conservation of Energy.
Scientists tell us that matter and antimatter annihilated each other into energy but they were
not created equally – 1 in a billion matter particles survived the annihilation process, in the
form of a quark-gluon plasma which also contains electrons and antimatter particles. This is
called the matter-antimatter asymmetry and scientists are now looking for it. From the
plasma the universe was made. And scientists don't know how the asymmetry happened let
alone why.
In 1932, Carl Anderson, discovered that gamma ray photons split into electron-positron pairs
when he fired the gamma rays onto nuclei. To me, this proves that this is how the energy of
the early universe got converted into matter. Now, electrons and positrons were created in
equal numbers i.e. there's no matter-antimatter asymmetry. So stop looking for it at the
expense of the taxpayers. The reason why lay people accept the matter-antimatter asymmetry
is because scientist like Stephen Hawking say it. Hawking didn't invent it; he's just towing the
line. This is the penalty we have to pay for towing the line. So remember, don't tow the line
unless you fully understand it. If you don't understand it, say that you don't.
When the electron-positron pairs collided again, they annihilated each other into 2 photons of
energy. Hence, each photon will have half the energy of the original photon which means that
they cannot split into new matter pairs.
In 1934, Briet and Wheeler came up with a theory that low energy photons can collide,
coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs if the resultant photon has enough energy. This
was later proved experimentally in 2014 by scientists at Imperial College London, UK who
built a photon-photon collider and proved the Breit-Wheeler theory.
Since energy would be trapped by the plasma, they would be forced to collide and split into
matter particles for all eternity. Besides, the plasma would be made of electrons and positrons
not quarks and gluons etc. What must have happened is that the positrons and electrons must
have combined to form protons and neutrons which reduced the number of electrons and
positrons available for the annihilation process. This means that the annihilation process
slowed down to a stop. The current explanation of the annihilation process implies that it was
a wasteful event. The new theory says it wasn't wasteful because the products of the
annihilation were recycled - we now have experimental proof for the recycling process.
The upshot of this is that protons and neutrons are made of positrons and electrons not quarks
and gluons. This makes sense because when a free neutron decays, it decays into a proton, an
electron, and an antineutrino. In radioactivity, some isotopes decay by capturing an atomic
electron. This implies that the captured electron is at home in the nucleus. Some isotopes
decay by positron emission which implies that positrons exist in the nucleus.
There is no case for the term antimatter. Scientists claim that a positron is a form of
antimatter and the proton is a form of matter. Also matter and antimatter annihilate each other
on contact. But if you put a proton (matter) and a positron (antimatter) together, they don't
annihilate each other mainly because of the immense repulsive forces between them. This
invalidates the definition of antimatter and should be replaced by a new definition that matter
is made up positive and negative particles that would annihilate each other on contact - the
term antimatter should be dropped. The law that says like charges repel and unlike charges
attract is still valid; and it's the unlike charges that annihilate each other. So, there's no such
thing as antimatter; it's just an invalid definition made by scientists. And this is the tip of the
iceberg regarding invalid definitions.
At this point, I'd like to point out that science is made of accepted definitions, assumptions,
and postulates. I also found out that, although science was born out of philosophy, scientists
hold philosophers in disdain accusing them of sitting on the fence when it comes to making
decisions and arguing about matters to the nth degree without gaining anything useful.
Despite all this, I'd like to give you a philosophical maxim: truth is what is accepted; not
necessarily what is actually true. But then truth is subjective and depends on your experience.
Another maxim is more to the point: if you believe that a lie is the truth then the actual truth
would appear as a lie.
Alan Guth said, "I don’t think at this point we have any way of knowing where the laws of
physics came from. We could hope that when we really understand the laws of physics that
they will describe how the Universe came into existence."
People, not just scientists, think that the laws of physics are entities that have to be created.
My view is that the laws of physics come into being when matter and energy come into the
universe. For example, the inverse square law between charged particles cannot exist without
electric charges; the laws come as an intrinsic property of matter. A law simply allows us to
make predictions on the behaviour of physical system which are predominantly natural. Even
man-made things are natural in the sense that they're made of natural materials albeit made by
humans.
I'm assuming that energy itself is a form of matter because high energy photons split into
electron-positron pairs as discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932. Earlier, in 1924, Luis
DeBroglie discovered that moving particles exhibit wave behaviour where its momentum is
inversely proportional to the wavelength of the wave it exhibits. This implies that photons of
energy are particles that exhibit wave behaviour. It seems that Huygens and Newton were
both right about light - Huygens claimed that light was made of waves and Newton claimed
they were a stream of 'corpuscles' i.e. particles. Although Newton's corpuscular theory was
eventually superseded by Huygens's wave theory, Einstein proved that Newton was also
correct and suggested the particle-wave duality theory which should've been replaced by
DeBroglie's findings.
Some photons cannot split into particles as they don't have enough energy to do so. This still
means that they're made of positively and negatively charged particles that are tightly bound
to each other that they cannot split. This sounds like quarks but unlike quarks, photons are
separate entities and actually collide with each other, coalesce, and split into electron-positron
particles when the combined energies are greater than or equal to the sum of the energies of
the particles they split into. A photon-photon collider was built by scientists at Imperial
College London, UK and proved the 1934 Breit-Wheeler theory that photons can collide,
coalesce and split into electron-positron pairs.
What I don't understand is that some cosmologists claim that inflation produced all the
energy required to build a universe from; while others claim that matter and antimatter were
produced during inflation. Some scientists said that during inflation, the temperature was too
hot for matter to be formed and yet others don't take that into account.
###
Chapter 2: The Nuclear Forces and the Quark Theory
Currently, protons and neutrons are said to be made of different types of quarks held together
by gluons which mediate the strong nuclear force. The quarks don't just have different
flavours (up & down) but also come in different colour charges (not literally coloured; yet
they're called red, green, and blue). A combination of red, green, and blue produces no
colour charge i.e. white is analogous to colourless or zero; so that hadrons don't have an
overall colour charge. Mesons, being made of quark-antiquark pairs, have colour and anticolour charges and the result is colourless. This means that there are antired, antigreen, and
antiblue colour charges. Thus a colour and its anti-colour results in a colourless particle.
In 1964, Oscar W. Greenberg introduced the notion of colour charge to explain how quarks
could coexist inside some hadrons in otherwise identical quantum states without violating the
Pauli Exclusion Principle. The quarks and their anti-particles are said to be fermions
because they're spin 1/2 and hence, must comply with the Pauli Exclusion Principle like
leptons do but leptons don't have colour charges which is probably why they don't react to
the strong force.
The quarks have fractional charges but they are arranged in 3s so that the proton will have
an overall charge +1 and the neutron will have no net charge overall. The proton is said to
be made of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark and the neutron is made of 2 down quarks and 1
up quark. The up quark carries a charge of +2/3 and the down quark -1/3. This means that
the proton carries a charge of +2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3 = +1; and the neutron carries a charge of
+2/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 = 0 i.e. neutral.
The strong force between quarks is different from other forces in that it increases with
distance - the more you try to separate them, the stronger the force becomes and the more
force you need. This is called asymptotic freedom and David Gross won a Nobel Prize for
determining it. However, you can't separate them because, when they get far enough, pair
production happens and one remains in the hadron and the other forms a quark-antiquark
pair called a meson. If you were separating the quarks of a meson, then 2 pairs are produced.
The process which prevents quarks from being separated is called quark confinement which
imprisons the quark in the hadron or meson particle.
Another type of strong nuclear force is between the nucleons when they combine to form
nuclei of atoms. This force is mediated by mesons notably pions which form spontaneously.
Also colour charges are exchanged between quarks which cause the colour of the receiving
quark to change. Sometimes this is called the colour force rather than the strong force and
it's mediated by gluons. This means that the gluons also come in 3 different colours.
The nuclei have nuclear orbitals and the bonds between nucleons are called nuclear bonds.
How the nuclear orbital theory works is still a mystery but it's thought that these nuclear
orbitals are populated by protons and neutrons because neutron and proton halos have been
observed. The nuclear orbitals have the same designation as atomic orbitals i.e. s, p, d, f, etc.
There are more sub-orbitals in the nucleus than in atomic orbitals.
Although the free neutron is unstable, it's stable when in a combined state where it's
indistinguishable from the proton. The free neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an
antineutrino. This occurs via the weak nuclear force that's mediated by the W-, W+ and Z0
particles. In the neutron decay, a W- particle is emitted which decays into an electron and an
antineutrino. It's the weak nuclear force that enables the sun to shine.
In this theory, the more massive the mediating particle is, the shorter the range of the force.
The energy-mass of the W- particle is 80GeV i.e. that of 80 protons. Where does it get that
energy from? It gets it from the quantum vacuum for a tiny fraction of time then repays it
when the particle decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The mediator of the
electromagnetic force is the photon which is massless. Hence, the electromagnetic force has
infinite range. Gravity also has infinite range which means that its mediator, the graviton,
must be massless. The graviton hasn't been isolated maybe due to the fact that it has to be a
spin 2 boson - all mediators of the fundamental forces are bosons of spin 1 except the
graviton.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are extremely short range i.e. the width of a proton.
Because the one type of strong force is mediated by the gluon which is massless, it should
have an infinite range; but this is superseded by the asymptotic freedom so this theory doesn't
apply(?) The other type of strong force is mediated by mesons which are far more massive
than the gluons; which means that it's range is fairly short.
As I've already mentioned, the early universe was made of an electron-positron plasma from
which protons and neutrons were made. In more detail, the proton would have a nucleus of
positrons orbited by electrons in orbitals similar to atoms. The neutron would have the same
structure as the proton but with a different number of electrons and positrons: protons would
have an excess of one positron in its nucleus and the neutron would have equal numbers of
electrons and positrons. However, as yet, I don't know what holds the positrons together
against their repulsive forces possibly the neutrinos or photons. I prefer photons because it
sort of explains gamma ray decay.
This would explain why the free neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Why the neutron is unstable is unknown at the moment. My theory suggests that if
the positive proton has a stable configuration then adding an extra electron to it, destabilizes
it as it becomes a neutron.
Since the new structure of nucleons is like atomic structure, the nucleons would have
nucleonic orbitals and, when they combine, they would form nuclear orbitals like atomic
orbitals form molecular orbitals when combined with other atoms. This would explain why
the neutron is stable in the combined state: it's because its extra electron is now revolving
around the nuclear orbital rather than just the neutron. This would also explain why the
neutron is indistinguishable from the proton because, once the electron is released, what's left
is exactly like the proton.
Also, the apparent short range of the strong and weak nuclear forces is due to the fact that
nuclear bonding can only take place when the nucleons are close enough. But this bonding is
electromagnetic which doesn't need new forces of nature. Since quarks don't exist, gluons and
colour charges are not necessary. The colour charge theory was introduced because, if the
quarks were colourless, they would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle as they're fermions.
To me it sounds like inventing epicycles to iron out anomalies of a false theory.
It has been noticed that if a nucleus has too many neutrons then it becomes radioactive and
decays by electron (beta-) emission. However, if there are too few neutrons then the nucleus
becomes radioactive and decays either by electron capture or positron (beta+) emission. If the
nucleus has far too many neutrons, it can decay by alpha particle (helium nuclei) emission.
Some radioactivity occurs by gamma ray emissions which are energy photons. Currently my
theory doesn't account for it yet - it's a work in progress.
Currently, photons are regarded as massless waves yet they contribute to mass in an unknown
way but according to Einstein's E=mc2. My theory uses the DeBroglie wavelength to prove
that photons are particles that exhibit wave behaviour and it becomes understandable why
photons contribute to mass. For example, the proton is said to consist of 3 quarks yet they
only contribute 10% of the proton's mass; the other 90% is provided by the massless gluons.
It's like building a house that's 10% bricks and 90% mortar or should that be air - but air has
mass whereas gluons don't.
My theory claims that, because the strong force is a manifestation of the electromagnetic
force, the gluons don't exist because the mediator of the electromagnetic force is the photon.
So, the proton's and the neutron's mass is that of the constituent electrons and positrons minus
the binding energy.
The fact that nuclear bonds form in a similar way to molecular bonds means that nuclear
bonding occurs electromagnetically i.e. either the strong and weak nuclear forces don't exist
or they're manifestations of the electromagnetic force. Now that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces
of nature can be described as manifestations of the electromagnetic force, it implies that the
remaining one (gravity) is also a manifestation of the electromagnetic force. Hence, the
electromagnetic force is the one force of nature.
Having said that, Einstein (and now his successors) was trying to unify the forces of nature.
This was the wrong approach and it still is. Maybe that's why they can't merge Quantum
Mechanics (QM) with General Relativity (GR); all they get is an infinity of infinities. Now
there's no need for this. Since unification is the wrong approach, electricity and magnetism
should never have been unified in the first place.
In the 19th century, Ampere noticed that parallel current carrying conductors either repel or
attract each other depending on the directions of the currents: if the currents were flowing in
the same direction, the conductors attracted each other; if the currents were flowing in
opposite directions, they repelled each other. Now, an electric current is made up of moving
electrons which are negatively charged; so they'll repel each other no matter which direction
they flowed. However, a moving electric charge generates a magnetic field at right angles to
the flow of electricity whose polarity DOES depend on the direction of current flow. So it's
the magnetic field that does the attraction and repulsion i.e. the electric and magnetic forces
act independently despite the fact that the magnetic field is a creation of the electric field.
This proves that unification was not required at all. In fact, by unifying the electric and
magnetic forces, scientists have thrown away an avenue of investigation which would've led
to better explanations of nature rather than leaving us at the mercy of useless mathematicians
whose results need subjective interpretations anyway.
So, if the nucleons are made of positrons and electrons then quarks and gluons don't exist and
the quark theory with its quantum flavour dynamics and quantum chromodynamics are false
or rather completely imaginary yet all that false evidence for the quark theory was accepted.
It reminds me of Lawrence Krauss's quote of Richard Feynman - the easiest person to fool is
yourself. In this case, the scientists fooled each other then they fooled the government then
the general public.
This means that the evidence presented by CERN, in 2012 for the existence of the Higgs
boson, is false according to my theory. In fact, anything presented by scientists is probably
false. It's worse than religion because scientists not only claim it's the truth, but also they
have experimental evidence for it. In fact, they claim it's the truth BECAUSE they have
experimental evidence for it. In one physics forum, Jean Tate compared me to Bozo the
clown. She meant BOSON the clown notably the Higgs boson. She claimed that the evidence
I presented (above) was full of logical inconsistencies and yet she failed to name 3 of them. If
you're going to accuse someone's theory of being full of logical inconsistencies, you need to
state at least 3 of them; the more the better actually.
Philosophically, if a lie is accepted as the truth, then the actual truth would appear as a lie. So,
as far as I am concerned, it's the scientists who are wrong; my truth appears wrong because
they've accepted their own lies i.e. they fooled themselves. Remember what Richard
Feynman said? Talking of whom, he once said "we have to accept nature as it is, absurd". I
assume that nature doesn't conform to science theories notably Quantum Mechanics (QM)
which is accepted to be a full and correct description of nature not the incomplete version
Einstein described. Now QM is not only complicated but is counter intuitive. Because it's
used as a description of nature, then nature appears absurd. Feynman should've taken his own
advice - the easiest person to fool is yourself. And that's what he's done: he fooled himself.
As far as I'm concerned, nature is perfect. If your theory shows that nature is absurd then it's
your theory that's absurd not nature. It seems that scientists are prepared to cut the foot of
nature to fit the shoe of their theories. I wanted to call these types of theory shoeish theories
but that sounds like Jewish theories so I changed my mind.
Because Feynman didn't invent QM, he's not the one who's absurd; but he's foolish to accept
a ridiculous theory without critical thinking. I admire Einstein for not accepting QM but then
he gave us the equally unacceptable theories of Special and General Theories of Relativity.
Feynman got a Nobel Prize for Quantum Electrodynamics which I find unacceptable because
of the word Quantum because it uses absurd methods to define things. So I'm stuck with
Ampere's and Faraday's electrodynamics. At least these don't make nature look absurd.
###
Chapter 3: The Standard Model
According to the current theory, there is a Standard Model of Particle Physics. There's also a
Standard Model of Cosmology but it's based on that of particle physics but applies to the
cosmos. The Standard Model comprises the 4 fundamental forces, their mediating particles
and the fundamental particles and their anti-particles.
The fundamental forces are Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Electromagnetic, and Gravity.
Their mediating particles are gluons, W and Z bosons, photons, and graviton. Notice that the
Weak Nuclear force is mediated by the charged W boson and the neutral Z boson. All these
particles have been accounted for except the graviton which has been excluded from the
Standard Model theory but is included in some tables for completeness I presume.
The fundamental particles are the leptons and the hadrons and their anti-particles. Bosons
are also fundamental particles but they're not components of other particles.
The leptons are the electron, the muon, and the Tau particle. The anti-leptons are the
positron, the anti-muon, and the anti-tau particle. Corresponding to these particles are
neutrinos: electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino; and their anti-particles. Note
that the neutrinos are also called leptons because they're tightly coupled to their parent
particle. So, in effect, there are 12 leptons: 6 particles and 6 anti-particles.
The hadrons are the up quark, strange quark, and top quark; and their anti-particles. There's
also another row of quarks: the down quark, the charm quark, the bottom quark; and their
anti-particles giving us a total of 12 hadrons: 6 particles and 6 anti-particles.
These particles are arranged in rows of 3 called families or generations. Why nature has
divided them into 3 families each is currently being investigated. Incidentally, all particles
are unstable except the electron and the positron (leptons) and the up and down quarks
(hadrons). Why this is so is being ignored and not investigated (!!!).
So the Standard Model has a total of 29 particles and anti-particles = 12 leptons + 12
hadrons + 5 bosons. If these particles have mass the Standard Model doesn't work. Peter
Higgs and colleagues suggested that a field permeates the universe that has a resistive force
which is mediated by the Higgs boson. The more resistance a particle encounters, the more
mass it engenders in the particle. If a particle doesn't encounter any resistance, then it's said
to be massless and would travel at the speed of light. So gluons, photons, and gravitons
would travel at the speed of light and all the others would travel moderately slowly because
they encounter resistance.
So, the Standard Model only survives because of the creation of the Higgs field and its
mediating particle, the Higgs boson. Hence, the Standard Model has 30 particles but
scientists usually quote 29 because the graviton hasn't been isolated and they can't explain
how gravity works in terms of the Standard Model. Besides, they have General Relativity to
explain gravity. Some Quantum Mechanics is used by the Standard Model especially when
explaining the existence of very large bosons such as the W and Z bosons. I mean a free
neutron decays by emitting a W- particle which has 80 times the mass-energy of the neutron it gets that extra energy from the quantum vacuum and pays it back when it decays.
The Standard Model is the result of one abstract mathematical equation that can fit on a Tshirt and is described as beautiful. It may have its flaws but it makes very accurate
predictions - the most accurate of all the alternative theories.
My version of the Standard Model is weirdly simple: it consists of 2 fundamental particles
and one fundamental force of nature. The particles are the electron and the positron; and the
one force of nature is the electromagnetic force; its carrier being the photon. Notice that the
electromagnetic force is that which exists between charged particles namely the electron and
the positron. As I explained earlier about antimatter - there's no such thing as antimatter as it
was ill-defined and consequently produced a paradox in that a particular particle and an antiparticle didn't annihilate when the definition says they must annihilate each other.
So the positron is not the anti-electron; it's just a piece of positively charged matter. All
composite matter is, therefore, made of positively and negatively charged particles including
photons. Carl Anderson has proved that gamma ray photons split into electron-positron pairs
so electrons and positrons are fundamental to the construction of all composite matter. Then
composite matter can be aggregated to form larger structures and so on.
However, if a photon has energy < 1.022 MeV (2 * 511 KeV the mass-energy of the electron)
then it doesn't split into electron-positron pairs. My theory is that the small charged particles
are bound together by the electrostatic charges between them such that they cannot split. But,
as they acquire energy, the distance between them gets longer thus weakening the bond. And,
when they reach a critical mass-energy (1.022 MeV) they split into electron-positron pairs.
Some photons have enough energy to split into pairs but they don't. To me it's like
superheated water where you can get boiling water at 110 deg C. When you shake it, you get
a spontaneous phase change as the superheated water turns to steam. This is what Carl
Anderson was doing: he was firing the gamma rays onto atomic nuclei to provoke a phase
change or to encourage the split to take place.
So my Standard Model can easily be explained by the 19th century physics which deals with
electricity. Now that we have a deeper understanding of the relationship between electricity
and magnetism, we can use the forces of the electromagnetic field to enforce the laws of
nature as natural behaviour is forced by some agency which is the electromagnetic force. I
call it the Law Enforcement Agency. Notice that electromagnetism was deduced by Michael
Faraday and codified by James Clerk Maxwell all in the 19th century.
Then came Einstein in 1905 with his Special Relativity; Neils Bohr in 1913 with his quantum
mechanics; Einstein again in 1915 with General Relativity; DeBroglie in 1924 with his
DeBroglie wavelength; and Schrodinger in 1926 with his wave equation bolstering quantum
mechanics. Out of all these theories, I like the wave equation because Schrödinger said that it
describes the motion of the electron in the potential well of the proton - that to me is
electromagnetism and I accepted it wholeheartedly.
As far as I am concerned, the 20th century was largely wasted with mainly false theories.
Maybe large swathes of Quantum Mechanics can be saved as they're based on Schrödinger's
wave equations which can easily be transformed into an electromagnetic field theory. As for
Quantum Field Theory (QFT), since it explains all the current theories, most of which are
false, then is itself false because it can explain anything that's accepted by the mainstream.
###
Chapter 4: The New Big Bang
I will now describe the Big Bang theory in terms of the New Standard Model which contains
2 particles and 1 boson namely the electron, the positron and the photon.
In the beginning, the laws of physics fail; so, at least, science cannot explain creation. It's as
if though a supernatural entity created everything as a form of energy. The New Standard
Model specifies that the photon, the carrier of energy and electromagnetism, is a neutral
composite particle that has mass and exhibits wave behaviour according to the DeBroglie
wavelength. Either the supernatural entity caused the energy to expand or it expanded under
its own internal forces. This is analogous to the Big Bang.
As the fledgling universe expanded, it cooled; and when it reached a particular temperature,
the photons split into equal numbers of electrons and positrons i.e. no matter-antimatter
asymmetry. In fact, there's no such thing as antimatter because this was a quirk of a definition
that went wrong. The process of splitting photons into pairs of matter particles was proved by
Carl Anderson who split gamma ray photons by firing them at atomic nuclei for which he
won a Nobel Prize.
Each photon is made of a positively charged and a negatively charged particle and, as it
moves, it displays the DeBroglie wavelength. In this case, it would be an electromagnetic
wave that is an intrinsic property of the photon particle. If the particles of the photon have <
1.022 MeV, they remain tightly bound because the distance between them is very short and,
by the inverse square law, have a very large electrostatic force of attraction. But, if they have
> 1.022 MeV, the distance between the particles gets longer which weakens the bond and
they can split into electron-positron pairs when provoked. Photons can have much larger
energies than 1.022 MeV and still remain as photons. This is like superheated water where
boiling water can exist at 110 deg C.
The electrons and positrons formed a plasma which confined radiation until they split into
pairs. However, some electrons and positrons annihilated each other into photons of energy
but each new photon had half the energy of the initial photon so it couldn't split into pairs.
However, in 2014, scientists at Imperial College London, UK, built a photon-photon collider
which proved that when photons collide, they coalesce and split into electron-positron pairs.
In other words, the energy was recycled.
As the universe continued to expand and cool, it reached a temperature where the positrons
and electrons combined to form the protons and neutrons in a similar way to atoms. They
would have nuclei of positrons orbited by electrons in nucleonic orbitals. The proton would
have 1 excess positron in its nucleus and the neutron would have an equal number of
positrons and electrons.
This process removed electrons and positrons from the mix so that they weren't available for
annihilation. This means that the annihilation process came to an end as soon as there weren't
enough electrons and positrons to do the annihilation. It also means that no energy was
wasted because of the recycling process.
At the moment, I can't explain neutrinos even though they may be needed to keep positrons
apart in the nuclei of protons and neutrons. However, neutrinos are neutral so this function
can be fulfilled by photons. According to the New Standard Model, neutral particles are
necessarily composite. So, we may not need the neutrino after all - but I keep an open mind.
Further down the line in the evolution of the universe, the nucleonic orbitals of the protons
and neutrons merged to form nuclear orbitals and thus forming the first atomic nuclei. Only
hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and some traces of heavier elements were formed. In fact, the
heavier the nucleus, the less chance of it forming.
The universe continued to expand and cool as nuclei and free electrons formed the plasma
until it was cool enough for the nuclei to acquire electrons in atomic electron shells to form
neutral atoms. As the plasma became neutral, it released any remaining photons of radiation.
However, this radiation is in front of the cloud of gases from which stars, planets, and
galaxies were formed. That means it did NOT form the cosmic microwave background
radiation. This is another myth perpetuated by scientists just like the Higgs field and boson.
This means that we can't see the radiation of the early universe because it's ahead of us and
moving away from us at a faster velocity than we are. The Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation is one of the biggest lies perpetrated by current science. Because mainstream
science is behaving worse than the Church in medieval times, we can't argue against it
despite them inviting alternative theories.
###
Chapter 5: Transcript of "The First Second" Video
This chapter is a transcript of a video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfpH3Zox6m4]
about the first second of the Big Bang with my explanation in terms of electromagnetism, the
one force of nature. This has been taken down now but my transcript remains. A similar
video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MFhAoUUmQ&t=2210s] exists.
Narrator: Creating time, space, and everything is a pretty neat trick. Obviously it happened
but so far, physics hasn’t figured out how.
It seems like a neat trick because it didn’t happen that way. And, for the same reason, that’s
why physicists can’t figure it out - leave physics out of it. This will become a recurrent theme
because, I believe, physicists have got it wrong - the laws of physics fail at the singularity.
Michio Kaku: We don’t know why it banged. We don’t know what banged. We don’t know
how it’s banging.
I can agree with that. But the fact that we’ve ended up with a universe of energy and matter,
we can assume that energy or matter was created, by whatever agency, and it banged. But,
it’s a theory; I can’t talk about it as if it was gospel truth.
Narrator: All we know for sure is all of existence suddenly burst into life. This is the
beginning of the 1st second when time itself is set to zero.
These statements are fairly accurate, to my mind, as time would tick from when everything
was created. To me, the first second is the start of the Big Bang not necessarily the creation.
This is why I don’t know how long creation took. However, the formation of matter and its
composite forms can be estimated with wide margins of error.
Lawrence Kraus: It’s the moment when everything we see; all hundred billion galaxies each
containing hundreds of billions of stars; all of that material was compressed into a region
which was infinitely small.
This is almost a description of a singularity. What Kraus is implying is that all matter was
created all at once. I can’t argue with that except for the infinitely small region of space - it’s
better than a singularity which is supposed to be zero volume that contains all the matter of
the universe.
Scientists are avoiding the use of the singularity because the laws of physics fail at the
singularity. This means that Lawrence Krauss's book: "A Universe from Nothing" is wrong as
creation of spacetime cannot be explained by the laws of physics; but Krauss claims that it
does.
Narrator: In its first second, the universe evolved more radically than in the 13.8 billion
years that follow.
The biblical God took 6 days to create the heavens and the earth, which is more credible than
1 second because forces need a finite time to act.
Phil Plait: The 1st second of the universe was the most important second the universe ever
had. And it went through more stages in that 1st second than it has since.
Narrator: So much happens so quickly that scientists need a whole new concept of time.
Lawrence Kraus: For human beings, 1 second can seem a very short time. But for the
universe, an incredible amount can happen.
This is a theory but is passed off as an indisputable fact. They came to this conclusion
because of current observations of the universe that need explaining. Sounds like epicycles.
Narrator: We measure our lives in hours, minutes, and seconds. But they’re useless in the
timescale of the creation because the Big Bang unfolds almost instantaneously.
This is one of the reasons why I reject this theory. I used to think that the Biblical account of
creation, that God created the universe and everything within it in 6 days, was unbelievable.
The scientific version simply takes the biscuit - 1 second? Please!
Lawrence Kraus: We have taken our understanding what the universe is like from 1 second
to a 1/10th of a second, 1/100th, 1/1000th, a millionth of a second, a billionth of a second, all
the way back to a time where the laws of physics, as we know them now, break down.
Since we can’t go back to the moment of creation, all these are speculations that can never be
proved.
Narrator: That far back, time must be measured by unimaginably tiny slithers known as
Planck time.
The laws of physics need a certain amount of time to act because of the constancy of the
speed of light: the earth takes 8.25 minutes to react to the sun's gravity. But we're dealing
with infinitesimal distances.
Lawrence Kraus: One way of understanding how much actually happened in the 1st second,
is to think in the units of the Planck time, the Planck time being 10-43 second. There’s 10
million billion, billion, billion, billion Planck times in 1 second. There are only a billion,
billion seconds in the entire history of the universe. That’s far fewer seconds in all of history
since 1 second till today than there were Planck times from 1 Planck time to 1st second.
First, they said that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP) allows an amount of energy
for a certain amount of time as long as the product is < h/4π. They even said that the more
energy they borrow, the less time you can borrow it for. This implies that the borrowed
energy has to go out of existence otherwise creation would’ve taken place which is forbidden
by the HUP and the laws of physics particularly the conservation laws.
Although the HUP didn’t place any restriction on quantities, scientists took an arbitrary
decision to use Planck times unnecessarily implying that it’s a necessity imposed by physics
even nature. That’s another reason why I don’t believe in the scientific version of creation;
because of the timescales imposed upon us.
Narrator: By breaking time into such tiny fragments, we can imagine the birth of the universe
moment by moment. In the beginning, Space and time are wrapped up in an infinitesimally
small spec of pure energy. As the Planck time clock starts running, this dot of space and time
somehow burst into life.
They even confused the narrator: it should be an infinitesimally small spec of pure energy
that’s wrapped up in space and time, not the other way round. Besides, they didn’t even tell
him how much space and time was created if any.
Phil Plait: The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion in space; it was an explosion of space.
This implies that space and time were created at the same time as energy. This difficulty was
created by Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity which depended on the existence of
spacetime NOT space and time i.e. spacetime is like a fabric that can be stretched,
compressed, and dented I mean warped. So it had to be created at the Big Bang.
To me, Einstein is wrong on this description of space and time which means that other
relativistic effects could be equally wrong.
Narrator: As the hands of our cosmic clock approached the first Planck time, all of space
expands. The universe emerges everywhere at once.
This is confusing. I thought the creation took 10 million trillion, trillion, trillion plank times
and we were going to go through them one by one - not all at once.
Michelle Thaller: The wonderful thing is that it happened right here under your nose and it
happened 5 billion light years away. Every single point in space was involved in the big
bang.
Michelle doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She’s claiming that the centre of creation is
5 billion light years away when the furthest distance is 13.7 billion light years. She must be
thinking of the age of the Earth.
Lawrence Kraus: So it’s not a ball that you can stand outside of; everywhere you are is
inside of the Big Bang.
Hold this thought as this contravenes the multiverse theory - yes all science is a about
theories that are accepted as facts.
Narrator: In this very 1st instant of creation, some scientists believe that a single, pure force
- a superforce - rules everything in the universe.
My theory implies that there was no superforce at the beginning. The forces came in one by
one. The universe was either created via charged particles or pure electromagnetic energy. It
would’ve been either a ball of plasma containing the charged particles; or a ball of energy; all
of which would’ve had occupied a distinct volume of space whose dimensions we would
have difficulty estimating.
Michio Kaku: We think that the original universe was a state of perfection - a single unified
force that existed at the instant of the Big Bang.
Since I believe that the forces of nature came in one by one, the first force would’ve been the
electromagnetic force which would govern the behaviour of the first charged particles or the
electromagnetic photons. Since the early universe was too hot for matter to exist, the theory
implies that electromagnetic energy was created first.
In 1924, Luis DeBroglie found that moving particles exhibit wave behaviour. This implies
that photons are particles that exhibit wave behaviour. So energy and matter are not
interchangeable; they're different manifestations of each other. The difference between
photon particles and ordinary particles is that photons travel at the speed of light or at least
much faster than ordinary particles.
Narrator: As the 1st Planck time passed by, something causes the superforce to split,
shattering this state of perfection.
Since I don’t believe in the superforce, there was nothing to be split i.e. there was no
symmetry breaking. Scientists speak about forces as if they're separate entities that
independently affects matter. This is the wrong way of thinking about forces which are
consequences of the existence of matter and energy.
Hakeem Oluseyi: As the universe cools, these different forces freeze out; that means they
behave differently.
Does he mean they separated? Or was the symmetry broken by some unknown force? And
did they all ‘freeze’ out at the same time? Scientists are not using the same language. Big
mistake. Not singing from the same hymn sheet.
Michio Kaku: Think, for example, in terms of steam. If I have steam and I cool it, it turns to a
liquid. If I cool it again, it turns to a solid. So, in the same way, as the universe began to cool,
the different forces broke off from each other.
Using an analogy like this may be useful but is dangerous because Kaku is implying that the
energy in the early universe behaves like water. In the Bible, God walked upon the waters not
the steam. I believe that, if there was a superforce, the analogy wouldn't work because the
water molecules in steam are independent of each other, i.e. separate; and, when the steam
cools down, the molecules coalesce to form water. The superforce was whole at high
temperature then it broke up on cooling. That's contradictory.
Scientists tell us that when you heat a substance, its molecules get further and further apart
and the forces between them get weaker and weaker. They also tell us that the early universe
was trillions upon trillions of degrees hot so that matter cannot exist and the forces, if they
exist, would be very weak. As the universe cooled, these forces would appear slowly, which
supports my theory rather than the breaking up of one superforce.
Narrator: When the superforce split, a new force emerges to drive and shape the cosmos gravity. It will mould matter into planets, stars, and galaxies.
Scientists don’t really know what causes gravity and yet they tell us that gravity is the first
force to split off the superforce. Einstein tells us that the effect of gravity is caused by mass
warping spacetime. But in the early universe, there was no mass to do any warping and create
gravity. So, either this existing explanation is wrong or Einstein is wrong. In my theory,
gravity is the last force to come into being as will be discussed later.
Michio Kaku: If gravity were a little bit stronger, perhaps we would’ve had a Big Bang
which would stop and then re-collapse immediately to a big crunch. Life would be
impossible. If gravity were a little bit weaker, then we would have a Big Bang which keeps on
going and the universe will freeze to death.
The strength of gravity is determined by the amount of matter/energy present which means
that the strength of gravity is always at the correct strength because gravity doesn't have an
independent existence - it's NOT part of a superforce.
The following discussion seems to be about what happened to the universe after matter had
been created from energy by a method that baffles the scientists. This jumping from the first
few Planck times to thousands of years into the future of the universe is not only confusing
but also unprofessional.
Narrator: But gravity breaks away from the superforce at exactly the right strength to create
galaxies, stars, and life itself.
Michio Kaku: So while the universe is in some sense, fine tuned; we’re just right to have a
universe that expands slowly making it possible to create DNA and life as we know it.
Why are we talking about DNA when the universe contains very hot energy in which matter
cannot exist? Presumably, he's talking about a time billions of years in the future. But we're
discussing the 1st second of the universe.
Narrator: Gravity may be the perfect strength for our universe but, it’s not the only force that
will govern the cosmos. By the 10 millionth tick of the Planck time clock, another stupendous
event will begin - the wildest growth spurt in cosmic history.
The 1st second of the universe has barely begun and the shortest possible units of time Planck times - are flying by in their millions. The universe is a superhot ball of radiation
billions of times smaller than an atom and dense beyond imagination.
Gravity has begun shaping the future of the cosmos. But as the universe expands,
temperature drops and another force arrives on the scene - the Strong force.
So, the universe is billions of times smaller than an atom and yet it’s big enough to feel the
effects of gravity and now, the strong force. The disparity between my theory and the
accepted theory is that the accepted theory defines forces as having independent existence
whereas my theory claims that forces come into existence when matter/energy come into
existence. So, according to my theory, the strong cannot come into being until nuclei are
being formed which is not yet not by a long chalk.
Michio Kaku: Without the strong nuclear force, the nuclei of the atoms themselves would all
disintegrate.
Hi Michio, the programme is telling us that the universe is billions of times smaller than an
atom. Why are you talking about atomic nuclei? Did the programme editors quote you out of
context? I mean is it time for the strong force to come out now while there’s no matter to
control? If I were you, I would protest strongly to the programme makers for quoting you out
of context.
My theory is correct; the universe is too small and too hot for the other forces to come into
being at this stage. The only force that’s controlling the infinitesimally small universe is the
electromagnetic force governing the electromagnetic energy.
Narrator: 3 forces: gravity, the strong force, and the fractured superforce, rule the universe
as it hurtles towards its next milestone, an event that sets out the blue print for the galaxies
that fill the universe today.
We think this event happened because it explains a long standing mystery. Everywhere we
look in the universe, its billions of galaxies are spread evenly; the same number in every
direction. Nobody could explain why.
Phil Plait: All these parts of the universe must have, at one point, been in contact with each
other. It’s like having 2 people who live in opposite sides of the country getting up at the
same time, eating the same breakfast, dressing the same way even when they don’t talk to
each other. There must be something common in their past that links them.
Narrator: This problem needed a solution; and in 1979, a young cosmologist named Alan
Guth proposed one. He called it ‘inflation’
I don’t believe in the Inflationary theory because a more detailed study of it shows that it
depended on negative pressure and repulsive gravity which decayed and were never seen
again. That means that attractive and repulsive gravity coexisted for a brief period. During
this inflation, more energy was created than ever before. This actually confused me because
some scientists claim that all the energy needed was created all at once and this programme is
telling us all the energy needed was created during inflation without permission from the laws
of physics. Again, scientists are not singing from the same hymn sheet.
In fact, this programme started by telling us that all the energy needed to create a universe
was held in an infinitesimal amount of space that exploded in a big bang. Now they're telling
us that more energy is being created during the inflationary period. Conversely, if central
banks created more money during inflationary periods, it would stoke up the fires of inflation
i.e. make it worse. This is what is implied happened during cosmic inflation.
Alan Guth: It’s very exciting. I suddenly realised that it might be a key to a very important
secret of the universe but, at the same time I of course was very nervous because it’s all new
and I was shaky about whether or not it’s right.
Narrator: Guth speculated that the infant universe went through a phenomenal growth spurt.
Guth said that the Big Bang was a bangless event. So how did the universe expand? It needed
some sort of force to impart acceleration such as the Big Bang blast. Just because you can't
hear it doesn't mean there wasn't a powerful blast. I mean if a bomb hits a rocket in the
vacuum of space, wouldn't the blast damage the rocket? If you were watching the event from
a safe distance, you wouldn't hear the blast, but you can see its effect on the rocket.
Phil Plait: Cosmic inflation was a moment in the very early history of the universe when the
expansion suddenly accelerated. It got huge for the briefest moments of time.
Scientists just state what is supposed to have happened without explaining the mechanism for
it. Besides, the time it happened in is too short for the creation to happen. It was also
violating the laws of physics.
Narrator: Just 10 million Planck times after the Big Bang, a tiny volume of space suddenly
starts to expand much more quickly than before. This inflation is so rapid that it turns chaos
into order; spreading the constituents of our universe evenly throughout space and fixing
their positions within it.
The question is: what happened to the quantity of energy in that tiny volume of space? Did it
increase in quantity, or just volume? The latter implies that the photons of energy were
infinitesimally small but, after inflation, they're as big as planets. Clearly, that can’t be right.
So, I can only conclude that they increased in quantity which is creation that’s forbidden by
the laws of physics. Hence, I don’t believe in cosmic inflation.
Lawrence Kraus: As the universe cooled down in those earliest moments, it increased in
volume by a factor of 1090 in a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second.
OK, space increased by that factor. But what happened to the energy? Did it expand within
that expanded space? It implies that all the energy needed to create a universe was created
before inflation which is at variance with Guth’s version of inflation. Again, not singing from
the same hymn sheet.
Narrator: It’s like a grain of sand swelling to the size of the sun; faster than the speed of
light.
My theory simply says that all the energy needed to create a universe, was created all at once
in the right volume in an infinite and invariant space. That is, there was no need for inflation.
This ball of energy then exploded in space in a Big Bang which caused the acceleration we
see today i.e. the Big Bang blast is the cause of the acceleration.
Michelle Thaller: Have we violated Einstein’s laws? Nothing can go faster than the speed of
light. And here’s one of the subtle things about the Big Bang: space can expand so much that
objects appear to move apart faster than the speed of light; but they’re not moving - it’s the
space between them that’s growing.
Michelle’s argument, which is representative of scientific thinking, is baloney. According to
my theory, space is invariant i.e. it doesn’t expand neither within Einstein’s laws nor
exceeding them. It’s the contents of the universe that are expanding at sub-light speeds i.e.
without faster than light speeds. But hold the thought of expanding space for a later
discussion.
Narrator: Guth’s audacious idea, the inflationary universe could push the limits of our
understanding back to the very 1st moments of the very 1st second. But how could we ever
test it? How could we peer into the birth of creation?
TV static holds a clue. 1% of the static on this screen comes from light from the Big Bang. In
1964, astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were listening to radio signals from
space. But in every direction, they were picking up a background hum.
Puzzled by the hum, they suspected they knew the culprit and swept the entire receiver free of
pigeon droppings. But, to no avail.
Michio Kaku: If anything, the background got even greater; and according to legend, when
they gave a talk at Princeton, one physicist raised his hand and said: “Either you were
listening to the effects of bird droppings or the creation of the universe”
Narrator: What Penzias and Wilson have stumbled upon was the afterglow of the fireball
created by the Big Bang.
Phil Plait: As the universe expanded, it cooled. After a few hundred thousand years, it was
just protons and electrons flying around. But at some point, the universe cooled enough that
when an electron and a proton got together all over the universe essentially all at once, the
universe became transparent.
The programme was in the middle of discussing inflation which occurred at the 10 millionth
tick of the Planck time clock. And now we’re, again, talking out of context i.e. thousands of
years into the future from the point of inflation. However, the programme is trying to collect
proof for inflation which escaped 100s of 1000s years later.
My question is, when that light escaped, it was moving at the speed of light which is much
faster than the speed of matter. This escaping light would be in front of us. So, what did
Penzias and Wilson detect? My suggestion is that they detected light emitted by far flung
galaxies which have Doppler shifted into the microwave part of the spectrum.
Michio Kaku: Think of a gigantic fog that lifts. Before the fog lifts, you can only see a few
feet in front of you. Then suddenly, everything becomes clear. That’s what happened 380,000
years after the Big Bang.
Narrator: Ever since that moment, 380,000 years after the Big Bang, this light has travelled
uninterrupted through space. Scientists call it the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
Michio Kaku: If you were to write down a handful of the greatest scientific discoveries of all
time, one of them might be the discovery of DNA; another one may be the discovery of the
Cosmic Microwave Background. That’s how big this discovery was.
Narrator: The Cosmic Microwave Background first lit up the universe 380,000 years after
the Big Bang; but it bears the imprint of a time much earlier than that. A time when inflation
was transforming the cosmos. If the secrets to inflation are anywhere, they’re hidden here.
Scientists needed to take a closer look.
The infant universe is 1 trillionth, trillionth, trillionth of a second old. It abruptly inflates in
the greatest growth spurt in history. And the universe expands faster than the speed of light.
The secrets to this expansion are hidden in the Cosmic Microwave Background. The 1st ever
light to shine through the cosmos. To reveal these secrets, scientists need the best picture of
this light they can get.
May 2009, the European Space Agency launches the Planck satellite. It orbits the sun
scanning the temperature of the entire visible universe. It’s so sensitive it can measure the
temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background to within a millionth of a degree.
David Spergel: The blue spots on the map are cold spots; they’re to evolve to become large
empty voids. The red spots on the map, those are hot spots; they’re going to form clusters of
galaxies. This map is a blue print for how our universe is going to form and evolve. When we
look at this map, we’re also looking back in time and seeing the echoes of creation.
Narrator: The tiny variations measured by Planck go on to form the galaxies that fill the
universe; and inflation explains them perfectly. But scientists need a smoking gun - something
out of science fiction - gravitational waves.
Alan Guth: One of the tests is that we might be able to see the gravity waves that were
produced at the very end of inflation.
Narrator: Gravitational waves stretch and contract spacetime itself; they travel through the
universe like ripples in a pond. Scientists believe that the violence of inflation sent these
waves reverberating throughout the cosmos. If we could see them, it would be case closed;
scientists would know that inflation was real.
March 2014, 30 years since Alan Guth came up with inflation. A telescope at the South Pole
shakes the world:
News Reader: Today scientists announced that they have discovered what was going on in
the earliest moments of our universe, right after the Big Bang.
David Spergel: This is the most exciting scientific result in my career. Inflation was an
incredibly violent process. Different parts of the universe all expanding at somewhat different
rates but all faster than the speed of light. And this difference in expansion rates produced
gravitational waves; and these gravitational waves produced a signature on the microwave
sky that we’ve now seen. It’s something I’m so happy that it happened in my lifetime.
Narrator: The data is an almost perfect fit for inflation.
Alan Guth: What we’re finding is that the very simplest models of inflation, are agreeing
beautifully with what observations are being made. And that’s incredibly gratifying providing
very strong evidence that inflation really happened.
Narrator: Inflation explains why galaxies are spread so smoothly across the cosmos. In the
tiniest fraction of a second, it transforms a minute bit of space into the entire visible universe.
And the implications are stunning. Maybe it wasn’t just the visible universe that grew under
inflation. Some scientists now believe that other regions of space too distant for their light to
ever reach us, underwent inflation too; and they’re still inflating now.
Are they implying that more energy was created within those centres of inflation? Are they
implying a multiverse?
David Spergel: One of the profound things about inflation is that once it starts, it’s hard to
stop.
Alan Guth: Inflation never stops everywhere; it stops in places and every place it stops, one
produces a universe. Inflation tends to go on producing other pocket universes literally
forever.
They are talking about a multiverse. But this version is a multiverse of multiple universes
rather than parallel universes which occupy the same time and space.
Max Tegmark: Indeed, inflation made our Big Bang and then goes on to make lots of other
Big Bangs; and creates this big collection of universes - the multiverse.
This implies that at least 2 events happened: the creation of space; and the creation of many
Big Bangs where each Big Bang is a separate universe. However, Einstein said that space and
time was created as one entity - spacetime. That means that the multiple universes use the
same spacetime entity i.e. they share the same space and time but at different points in space.
It also means that sooner or later the universes will meet unless they're moving away from
each other just like galaxies in a single universe.
According to this theory, we'll never know because we can't communicate with the other
universes. Something is not quite right; each Big Bang is creating energy from nothing in
direct violation of conservation laws. Scientists do say that the real energy is being created
from virtual energy otherwise known as the zero-point energy. However, they don't explain
how the virtual energy got into the vacuum in the first place. They just say that spacetime
came into existence without telling us how.
They use the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to allow the virtual particles to become real
for an infinitesimal amount of time before they disappear out of existence. Whichever way
you look at it, this is violating the conservation laws. Besides, the HUP requires the energy
created from the virtual particles to disappear from the universe yet it's still here thus
violating the HUP law. Alan Guth tells us that matter-antimatter particles that come out of the
virtual particles are inflated away from each other that they don't annihilate each other.
Narrator: Our universe may be just 1 of an infinite collection of universes, in a multiverse
much, much larger than we could ever imagine. And some scientists argue that not only are
there multiple universes out there, they think every possible universe must exist.
People, identical to us, would live out every possible parallel life, in every possible parallel
world - a mind blowing outcome.
This is the reason why I devoted a chapter to the multiverse.
David Spergel: Now that we have such strong evidence for inflation, it’s time to take ideas
like the multiverse really seriously.
Narrator: Let’s reset. The universe is < a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second
old and the seeds of its galaxies have already been sown. But everything is still pure energy.
So, where does all the matter, the stuff of stars and you and me come from?
We’re on a journey through the first second of time. The universe is < a trillionth of a
trillionth of a trillionth of a second old. The temperature is a thousand trillion, trillion
degrees. The infant universe inflates far faster than speed of light; pumping vast amounts of
energy in space. But the cosmos is still the size of a baseball.
Lawrence Kraus: Inflation says that for a brief period empty space gets energy and, it turns
out that the universe keeps dumping energy into space to produce everything we see. And so,
apparently, you produce an incredible amount of stuff from nothing without violating the
laws of physics. It’s almost magic. But that’s the keyword - almost - it’s allowed by the laws
of physics.
That's pure baloney - it is violating the laws of physics. Just because scientists says it doesn't
violate the laws of physics doesn't mean it doesn't.
Narrator: As inflation ends, the brightest flash in history floods the cosmos with radiation.
Phil Plait: During the 1st second of the universe, it was unimaginably hot and dense. It was
basically a ball of energy.
Tara Shears: It’s not a place you’d want to stand in, you’d vaporize pretty quickly.
Everything zipping around at the speed of light.
Narrator: This universe full of radiation is nothing like our universe today, full of stuff,
material stuff.
Lawrence Kraus: Because it was so hot, atoms didn’t exist; matter, as we know it, didn’t
exist. The universe was a dense, soup of radiation.
Narrator: The early universe was a chaos of pure energy. But how did it transform into a
universe full of matter? To answer that question, we have to turn to Einstein and a very
famous equation: E=mc2.
I thought that the virtual particles created real particles in the form of matter-antimatter pairs
but inflation separated them so far apart that they couldn't destroy each other out of existence.
Now, we're talking about them as if they were photons of energy. Inconsistent theory.
The important thing here is that the narrator is preparing us to find out how the energy turned
matter. Damn. He explained it by E=mc2 which is an equation not a mechanism i.e. it doesn't
explain HOW it happened. Is he going to explain how the transformation took place?
Michio Kaku: Before Einstein, people said: matter is matter and energy is energy and never
the twain shall meet. Along comes Einstein and says: not so fast; they really are the same
thing.
No. Michio didn't explain it.
Narrator: Einstein realised that matter is just concentrated energy. This insight transformed
our understanding of the universe and allowed us to unleash devastating destruction - atomic
bombs.
The narrator is implying that the energy bundled itself into pieces of matter.
Michio Kaku: Energy (E) that can turn into matter (m) and vice versa. Even a small piece of
matter will be enough to unleash the power of hundreds of hydrogen bombs.
Again, this is not an explanation of the mechanism, just the equation.
Narrator: While atom bombs convert matter into energy; in the Big Bang, energy starts to
turn into matter. But it’s nothing like the matter that makes up the world we live in. So, what
does this primal matter look like?
This is Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island; home to the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider or RHIC for short. Here, they recreate the matter that filled the embryonic universe,
1 millionth of a second after the big bang.
The narrator makes us look forward to seeing how energy turned into matter. But first, let's
look at this type of matter before we explain how it got there.
Mike Lisa: In a sense, RHIC really is a time-machine. We’re reproducing the conditions that
existed in the early universe of the order of 1 micro-second after the Big Bang.
This reminds of an episode of "Family Guy" in which Peter Griffin was in an embarrassing
situation and he needed a diversion. "Ladies and gentlemen, here's Conway Twitty". In this
case, here's Mike Lisa. Hopefully, when mike has finished his spiel, you won't need to know
how energy converted into matter namely quarks, which is what Mike is talking about.
Narrator: RHIC fires gold atoms around a 2 and a half mile circular tunnel seventy eight
thousand times a second at almost the speed of light. Then it smashes them together in a
giant star detector.
He means gold nuclei or ions because you can't accelerate neutral atoms. It's a heavy ion
accelerator; so it's gold ions because the ionisation of gold atoms is too high to produce gold
nuclei.
Imagine smashing 2 cars together in a head-on collision; and working out what the cars look
like by analysing the debris thrown off. That’s what the team at RHIC are doing; they’re
hunting for the building blocks of protons by smashing them to pieces.
The problem here is that the energy the gold ions gain in being accelerated to near the speed
of light gets converted into matter that didn't exist in the gold atom in the first place. So, this
is the wrong method to find out what's inside atoms.
Mike Lisa: Each collision you see here you can see that they’re different. Some collisions
have more tracks coming out of them; curved lines represent... in fact, they are the particles
that came out of the collision. And you can see each collision generates a different number of
particles depending on the violence of the collision.
Narrator: What Mike and his team see is a spray of the most fundamental particles of all:
quarks. Quarks are normally bound inside protons and neutrons; but give quarks enough
energy, and they break free.
This is all speculation. Data can be interpreted in any way you see fit. It doesn't prove
anything, especially with other matter being produced from the energy pumped into the
system - it contaminates the results.
Mike Lisa: We expected these quarks, liberated from the protons and neutrons, not to
interact with each other; just stream out into our detector. What we found was a most perfect
fluid that was ever discovered, ever measured on the planet. So it actually flows much more
easily than water does. This was absolutely surprising.
This could be a plasma made of electrons and positrons which makes up all particles
according to my theory. It can be anything but it's what gets accepted that counts irrespective
of whether it's right or wrong.
Narrator: RHIC shows us that the perfect fluid of elementary particles occurs at just 1
millionth of a second into the Big Bang. But, like everything in the 1st second, it doesn’t last
for long. As the universe expands, it cools and something called the strong force makes its
presence felt.
Mike Lisa: The most important characteristic of the strong force is the confinement of quarks
inside protons and neutrons that we see today.
Didn't scientists say that the strong force came out of the superforce a long time ago shortly
after gravity separated from the superforce? Did it take that long to find something to act on?
or did the strong force appear as soon as nuclear material was available? Notice, they're
talking about quarks when they were discussing how energy turned into matter. Now that
they've introduced quarks without explaining how it came out of the energy, they don't have
to. Very convenient.
Narrator: When the temperature of the universe drops to 2 trillion degrees, the strong force
clumps quarks together in groups of 3 making protons and neutrons - the building blocks of
atoms. The universe begins to take the form we know today. But as matter is bursting into
existence all across the universe, there’s still something missing. Somehow, this matter has
no mass.
The universe is hurtling through its 1st second of existence. It begins 100 billion, billion times
smaller than an proton. After surging through an expansion, called inflation, faster than the
speed of light, the entire cosmos has grown to the size of our solar system; and matter is
bursting into existence. But this matter is strange - it has no mass.
The matter in this universe has mass. On earth, we feel it as weight. In space, objects can feel
weightless but they still have mass. If this astronaut has no mass, he’d be in big trouble.
You see, the diversion worked. You don't want to know how the energy turned into quarks, or
do you? This proves that scientists don't know how it's done. Yet they expect you to believe
in the existence of quarks without pesky explanation. I'd rather believe in God than false
science.
Science doesn't have a clue how energy got turned into quarks. Actually, they have evidence
how energy turns into electron-positron pairs; it's just that they ignored it in favour of the
inexplicable quarks. The tragedy is that they had this proof in 1932 and the quark theory was
cooked up in 1964. What a callous waste of time and money. So now they're using trickery to
avoid answering the question without any shame.
My theory is simple. Remember, Einstein stressed simplicity: "Everything should be made as
simple as possible, not simpler". I use existing experimental evidence that photons of energy
split into electron-positron pairs. This means that the early universe was a plasma of electrons
and positrons from which the protons and neutrons were made. That means that there was no
need for quarks and that either the strong force is a manifestation of the EM force or it doesn't
exist.
You see, here scientists avoided explaining how energy turned into quarks whereas I
explained how energy turned into electrons and positrons. So, who has the stronger case?
Janna Levin: You can’t actually float something down if it doesn’t have any mass. If
something doesn’t have any mass, it has to move at the speed of light. There’s no way of
stopping it. The universe is full of matter but matter which has no mass, just looks like a big
ball of light.
Why does a massless particle have to move at the speed of light? According to Newton, a
body remains at rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. So, what's
forcing the massless particle into motion? Is Newton wrong? Or is this a new science?
My theory states that all particles have mass as an intrinsic property including photons.
Because photons are fast moving particles, they have KE due to that movement = 1/2 mc2.
But the total energy is mc2. So where is the other half? It's the internal energy of the photon.
This proves that the photon is a particle as only particles that have mass can have internal
energy. This means that Einstein is wrong; matter isn't concentrated balls of energy. The
energy has to split into electrons and positrons; then the latter have to form nucleons which
acquire electrons to form atoms; which bind together to form higher structures. This is a
seamless description unlike the one that goes through the quark stage without explanation.
Narrator: The early universe had no mass; just elementary particles whizzing at the speed of
light. But today, our universe is full of planets and stars that clearly have mass. So, where
does this mass come from?
Hakeem Oluseyi: Apparently, there’s some field that permeates the entire universe and
different elementary particles interact with it in different ways. And it’s the interaction of the
particles with the field that gives the particle the property we call mass.
Narrator: Scientists call it the Higgs field, after Peter Higgs, one of the scientists to propose
it in the 1960s. The Higgs field is invisible. It stretches throughout space and it’s
accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson which interacts with particles
of ordinary matter as they pass through the field. The more an object interacts with Higgs
field, the more mass it gains. Without the Higgs field and the Higgs boson, there is no mass.
The Higgs field is a beautiful idea, but does it really exist? There’s only one place to find out:
at the biggest and the most advanced machine ever built. The Large Hadron Collider at
CERN.
Joe Incandela hopes to prove that the field exists by smashing the Higgs boson out of the
shadows.
My theory claims that electrons and positrons (the only fundamental particles in the universe)
have mass as an intrinsic property i.e. there's no need for a Higgs field/boson. My theory also
states that neutral particles are composite. So the photon isn't a fundamental particle as they're
not constituent parts of anything and they split int electron-positron pairs when they have
enough energy.
Joe Incandela: I actually need all of you, including the cameraman, to go through when the
other door opens. Just go all the way through. There you go. We’re going 90m which is about
300ft about 25 storeys. Took a couple years to actually engineer just the cables. There’s
enough cable to go from here to Moscow. And this takes us to the detector itself. So here we
are. Just like something out of a James Bond film; only this is real.
Narrator: The LHC fires 2 beams of protons around the 17 mile concrete-lined tunnel which
collide at the highest energies ever created by man.
Joe Incandela: It’s equivalent to shooting knitting needles from both sides of the Atlantic and
expect them to hit head-on in the middle.
Narrator: The collisions shatter the protons into a spray of new particles including, perhaps,
the Higgs boson. Joe’s team of 3800 scientists spent 5 years searching for the trail of
particles the Higgs should leave in its wake. On March 14th 2013, the LHC delivers.
Sean Carroll: It was an electric atmosphere. I mean the 20 year-old physicists had camped
out overnight in the hall way to get good seats in the lecture hall. And the 80 year-old
physicists, who had invented the idea back in the 60s, they were flown in from all over the
world and you know, secrecy was important. So it’s like this is one seminar you won’t want to
miss.
Announcer: I think we have it.
These results suffer from the same problem the smaller RHIC experiment but to a larger
margin of error. The particle found was created out of the enormous energy pumped into the
accelerator. What they showed us could've been anything. We just have to accept what they
tell us. I mean who are we to argue?
The RHIC experiment found quark fluid. Did the LHC at CERN find such a fluid?
According to my theory, scientists at CERN found experimental evidence for something that
doesn't exist. Or is it an interpretation problem? Remember the measurement problem?
Narrator: The discovery of the Higgs boson is one of the final keys to our understanding of
the Big Bang.
Sean Carroll: It was a very emotional moment and everybody got choked up.
Narrator: Thanks to Peter Higgs and the efforts of scientists around the world, we
understand a key moment of the 1st second. We now have all the building blocks to make the
universe.
Yes: the electron, positron, and the photon together with the electromagnetic force as the only
fundamental force of nature.
Sean Carroll: A thousand years from now when they’re writing the textbooks, they will
remember the moment when we found the Higgs boson. All the matter around us, all the
human beings and all the people, all the stars and the planets in the sky; the Higgs boson was
the missing piece. It really makes it get up and go.
Unamed Scientist: Without this Higgs mechanism, the Higgs field, you can’t form atoms;
without atoms, there’s no structure - we’re not here. That’s where this ... other name for this
particle came from: as the God particle. We would not exist without it.
The above conversations are all phooey i.e. false. There is no Higgs field/boson; it was
invented to make the equations of the Standard Model work by assuming that all fundamental
particles had no mass. You should've heard the worried tone of the narrator's voice when he
found out that the fundamental particles had no mass.
Narrator: Stars, planets, and people would be impossible without the Higgs field and the
Higgs boson. But these new discoveries may be responsible for much more than keeping our
feet on the ground. When the Higgs field pops into existence during the 1st second of the
universe, some scientists believe it may have triggered the splitting of the superforce.
Michio Kaku: Without the Higgs boson, we can’t exist. And we think that, a series of Higgs
bosons were responsible for breaking the symmetries of the superforce, so that the 4 forces
could emerge. That’s why when we found the Higgs boson, champagne bottles were being
opened up in all physics laboratories and we were all having a grand party.
Narrator: Nearing the end of the 1st second, 2 final forces split off.
Michio Kaku: Without the weak nuclear force, the stars would not shine.
Hakeem Oluseyi: The electromagnetic force is the force that governs everything that we do,
even the chemistry of our bodies.
Well done Hakeem for your description of the electromagnetic force. But you believe in the
other forces don't you. You have to tow the line.
Narrator: The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force now stand alongside the
strong nuclear force and gravity to shape the universe we live in. With these 4 forces, we
have a universe that can create our home.
No, we have the electromagnetic force, the electron, the positron, and the photon in a
universe that can create our home. See how simple this theory is; it complies with Occam's
razor and Einstein's call for simplicity.
Hakeem Oluseyi: The laws of physics which govern our universe are, at heart, these
fundamental forces. These forces drive the evolution of the universe.
Narrator: We’re nearing the end of the universe’s 1st second. Now the cosmos an inferno of
radiation and matter has given birth to the 4 fundamental forces of nature. But before the
first star has a chance to shine, a mysterious form of matter threatens to destroy it all.
The 1st second, the most important second in the history of the universe, is nearly over. The
universe is now 20 light years across, a fireball of light and matter. But an almighty battle
begins to rock the cosmos. Fundamental particles fill the early universe. But they must
survive the war; the war whose outcome will determine our future. Because matter has an
evil twin - antimatter - and the 2 are mortal enemies.
I've shown elsewhere that the term antimatter was ill-defined in that it led to paradoxes one of
which is that the positron (antimatter) does not annihilate the proton (matter) when the
definition says it should. More importantly, Alan Guth said that the matter and antimatter
produced out of the vacuum energy were inflated so far apart that they can't annihilate each
other. So where did this form of antimatter come from? Don't hold your breath for an answer.
Phil Plait: In many ways, they’re opposites of each other. What that means is, if you take a
lump of matter and a similar lump of antimatter and slam them together, they’ll be totally
converted into energy; and, according to Einstein’s E= mc2, it’s a lot of energy.
My research led me to conclude that only electrons and positrons annihilate each other
completely into 2 photons of energy. A proton and an anti-proton simply destroy each other
into smaller particles and the liberation of a lot of energy. E=mc2 doesn't apply here because
it's not the total mass of the proton and anti-proton that gets converted to energy.
Narrator: Matter and antimatter simply cannot coexist. They annihilate each other on
contact. While this cosmic carnage rages, as billions more matter than we see today, simply
disappears as matter and antimatter collide. The fate of the universe hangs in the balance.
In my theory, the electrons and positrons annihilate each other into pure energy as well. But
those energy photons collide with each other, coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs
again. There's no wastage because the energy gets recycled.
Michelle Thaller: You have to understand, the universe shouldn’t be here. It should’ve been
half antimatter and half matter and we should’ve all annihilated. We do not understand why
we even exist.
The existential problem is created by the false theories that scientists came up with. It doesn't
exist in my theory. God is a lot more careful with his creation than scientists are with their
explanations. They create problems that don't exist, not just particles that don't exist; and they
have experimental evidence for it.
Narrator: At the end of this epic war, matter wins out, but only by the slimmest of margins.
But why?
Sean Carroll: The question is, why in the universe, as we see it, there are more particles than
anti-particles? The galaxies and the stars in the sky, these are made of matter - they’re not
made of antimatter.
Narrator: Somehow, the balance between matter and antimatter was slightly skewed from the
beginning.
Lawrence Kraus: For every billion particles of matter and antimatter that were being
created by energy, one extra particle of matter was created. And that very small asymmetry 1 part in a billion - is enough to account for all the galaxies and stars we see in the universe
today.
Narrator: Could things have turned out differently? What if antimatter had won the war?
Lawrence Kraus: If antimatter had won instead of matter, the universe would probably look
the same. In fact, you know what? We’d be made of antimatter and we’d call it matter. Antilovers could sit in cars... anti-cars, looking at anti-moons, making anti-love and it will seem
exactly the same.
The above discussion is a load of tosh. First, equal numbers of positive and negative particles
not matter and antimatter particles were produced. Although annihilation did take place
because negative and positive particles annihilate each other into photons of energy; the
photons collided, coalesced, and split into electron-positron pairs i.e. the energy was recycled
as it was trapped by the electron-positron plasma.
As protons and neutrons were formed out of the electrons and positrons, fewer and fewer
electron-positron pairs remained for annihilation to occur. That is, the annihilation process
came to a stop eventually. Because the energy was being recycled, this process was not
wasteful as suggested by mainstream theories.
Narrator: So, why was there more matter than antimatter? Why was the universe built out of
balance? Professor Tara Shears at the Large Hadron Collider wants to find out.
Tara Shears: What we’re really interested in is how different the amounts of matter and
antimatter are and whether they match up to our understanding of how different matter and
antimatter should be; because that’s what we don’t understand.
In my theory, this problem doesn't occur. The fact that the mainstream theory has a problem
which scientists don't understand could mean that it's wrong in the first place.
Narrator: The LHC results show that the difference between antimatter and matter is smaller
than expected. To explain why, scientists need to know what tipped the scales in matter’s
favour.
Tara Shears: I really hope that we’re going to make a measurement here sometime in the
future which is just going to show us the light; show us what else is out there in the universe.
It’s going to make it all make sense.
All you need to do is accept that the current theory is wrong and accept the simpler
alternative which is based on experimental data already in the public domain. I've never heard
scientists speak about the splitting of high energy photons into electron-positron pairs.
Narrator: We still don’t completely understand the 1st second of the cosmos. But the fact that
we know so much already, speaks volumes about the determination and ingenuity of our
scientists.
My theory states that there's no matter-antimatter asymmetry because the term antimatter was
ill-defined and caused scientist to go on a wild goose chase coming up with a plethora of wild
and incorrect theories which they're now wasting a lot of taxpayer's money on. Another
reason why this asymmetry doesn't exist is because photons of energy split into equal
numbers of electrons and positrons. So they'll never find the asymmetry. But I'm sure they'll
find something like it like they found the Higgs boson, a particle that doesn't exist. In other
words, there's no God particle. It's like saying that Einstein overturned Newton - he never did.
More on that in my forthcoming book - Relativity.
Unamed Scientist: As a civilisation, we’re extending our understanding of where we are in
the universe. And that’s extremely important. This is why we love doing what we do.
Narrator: The 1st second is over. The universe already contains everything we see today.
He means the universe already contains the seeds of everything we see today.
Michelle Thaller: What we understand from the 1st second, tells a lot about what’s going to
happen for a long time after that.
Hakeem Oluseyi: The 1st second of the universe is amazing in its potential. Here we had a
universe with just the fundamental forces and the very elementary constituents of matter and
what would they yield? They would yield the entire universe, the works of Shakespeare, and
the music of 50 Cent.
Michelle Thaller: We’ve gone so much further than anyone thought we would have. And I
don’t see why the origin of the universe would be any different. It might take 5 years, it might
take 500 years; but I believe that one day, we would understand mathematically how the
universe began.
Understanding mathematically how the universe began doesn't explain physically how it
began. I conclude that it was the abstract nature of mathematics that led to this quandary. In
the past, mathematics was used as a tool to help understand nature. Now it's being used to
describe nature. In other words, in the past, mathematicians adjusted the shoes of their
theories to fit the feet of nature. Modern scientists are cutting the feet of nature to fit the
shoes of their theories. They're giving nature properties it doesn't have and particles that don't
exist in nature. This has to be wrong. The solution is clear: relegate mathematics to the role of
a tool as it always was.
Narrator: In the next few minutes, the universe cooled enough for protons and neutrons to
form the 1st atomic nuclei. Another 380,000 years must pass before the 1st atom appears. In
hundreds of millions of years, those atoms clump together to form stars and galaxies such as
the Milky Way. More than 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our sun and our planet, Earth,
are born. Their fate sealed in the 1st second of the Big Bang.
Scientists tell us that it took 1 second for spacetime to come into existence and expand to 20
light years in radius in which energy was formed out of the vacuum energy; got converted to
matter and antimatter in the form of quarks and electrons and their antimatter particles; got
inflated thus creating even more energy; and the matter and antimatter started a war in which
matter won by the slimmest of margins. The surviving quarks and electrons formed a plasma
which is opaque as it trapped the photons of energy within it. Also the quarks became
confined into protons and neutrons and this maintained the plasma albeit in a different form.
Then it took a few minutes for protons and neutrons to be made nuclei which remained as a
plasma because nuclei and electrons are charged particles. This plasma survived for 380,000
years before the nuclei acquired electrons to become neutral atoms thus releasing the
radiation.
My question is this, how do they know it took one second when the opacity of the plasma
makes it virtually impossible to know what's happening inside the plasma? How do they
know that it took a few minutes to form nuclei? And how do they know it took 380,000 years
to form atoms?
First my theory, doesn't use spacetime nor vacuum energy; and it starts with a universe full of
energy. Then explains that this energy split into electron-positron pairs so there's no matterantimatter asymmetry - in fact, antimatter is ill-defined and is not used. Only matter exists as
positive and negative particles that have mass i.e. there are no massless particles.
I can't give a timescale to show when the events happened nor how long each event took to
complete. I don't think these questions are relevant as they don't add anything of material
value nor answer any pressing questions.
All I can say is that it's as if though a supernatural entity created space in which the events
took place but that space plays no further part in the subsequent events. The supernatural
entity then created all the energy needed to create the universe and started the big bang. First,
the energy split into electron-positron pairs; then they formed protons and neutrons; then the
protons and neutrons formed nuclei; then the nuclei acquired electrons to form neutral atoms.
Upon the formation of electrons and positrons, a plasma automatically formed. When the
protons and neutrons formed, another form of plasma was formed. When the nuclei were
formed a 3rd form of plasma was formed. In all these forms of plasma, energy was trapped
thus causing the photons of energy to collide, coalesce, and split into electron-positron pairs.
This proves that these events were not wasteful of energy/particles as majority of the initial
energy created was converted to matter.
The important I want to highlight about this video is that in their description of the matterantimatter annihilation epoch, they implied that matter and antimatter annihilate each other
until all the fuel has been consumed except for a little excess of matter particles survived.
Scientists corroborate that because that's their contribution to the video.
My theory claims that, as well as electrons and positrons annihilating each other, photons
were colliding with each other, coalescing and splitting into electron-positron pairs. This is
the main difference between my theory and the mainstream theory. There's corroborative
evidence for colliding photons to support my theory. Scientists at Imperial College London
built a photo-photon collider where low energy photons were collided and they found that the
photons coalesce and split into electron-positron pairs.
Car Anderson's experiments that split gamma ray photons into electron-positron pairs; when
added to the experiments carried out at Imperial College London; they corroborate my theory.
I suspect that my theory won't be accepted because it's not mathematical. Furthermore, it
invalidates the quark theory, antimatter, and the nuclear forces i.e. it dismantles the Standard
Model of particle physics.
Many alternative theories to General Relativity (GR) have been presented to the scientific
community, notably MOND = MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, but they're not as accurate as
GR; so they're rejected them. My theory won't even be looked at because it's nonmathematical.
###
Chapter 6: Multiverse
There are various models of the multiverse all of which are fairly different:
1. Swiss Cheese
2. Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM
3. Solutions of String Theory
It's important to remember that I don't believe in the multiverse but I'm putting in my
tuppence worth to show the discrepancies between the scientific theories put out by
mainstream science. Some of the theories follow strict logical sequences which I can
sympathise with and can follow but that doesn't mean I believe in them. Besides, they may
have a point - I'm keeping my options open.
First of all, in order to comply with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR), you have to
accept, or at least imagine, the existence of spacetime. Now even in the Big Bang Theory,
this spacetime must first be created before the Big Bang can start because at t=0 there was no
space and time hasn't started. So, without explanation, spacetime came into existence which
means that time had started. With it, an ever increasing amount of vacuum was produced
complete with vacuum energy. It's as if though the spacetime continuum is made of vacuum
energy.
The story of the Big Bang is the story of the creation of the universe which implies only one
universe was created because when scientists are asked what happened before the Big Bang,
they say that the question is invalid because there was no time before the Big Bang - time
hasn't started. Then they go on to say that from the virtual energy of the vacuum [courtesy of
spacetime] came the quantum fluctuations (QFs) as allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle (HUP).
To me, the creation of spacetime and the virtual energy becoming real energy are two
separate events: first spacetime is created with the virtual energy and time gets started; then
virtual energy becomes real thanks to the HUP. This is a chink in the armour of mainstream
Big Bang Theory as they seem to imply that the Big Bang and spacetime occurred at the
same time which means that there's no outside the universe - everything that happens is inside
the universe. If you believe in the multiverse, then you have to disbelieve in the current
version of the Big Bang.
Notice I'm avoiding the singularity as it serves no purpose in this discussion.
So, if the creation of spacetime is a separate event to the so-called universe, then let's imagine
that this spacetime expanded at will until it's very large before the first universe came into
being. You can say that the first universe came into being shortly after the creation of
spacetime but that spacetime expands faster than the universe. In this case, spacetime is not
the universe but the container in which the universe expands. Spacetime has to expand faster
than the universe because it provides the vacuum in which the virtual particles live. But that
means there IS an outside to the universe and there IS an event before the Big Bang.
Ironically, when I was at school, we were debating the Big Bang which caused the expanding
universe. I asked a simple question: "What's the universe expanding into?" They all laughed
because they accepted that there was no outside the universe. I couldn't accept this theory as
it was explained because, when you blow a balloon, it expands in air i.e. the atmosphere. I
can't understand anything not expanding in a container. It seems that I was right not to accept
the theory as it was explained. Scientists are now distancing themselves from the original
description that I never accepted in the first place.
So far, there's nothing preventing another universe from being created out of the vacuum
created by spacetime; but we don't see it. You can conclude that while spacetime is smaller
than the diameter of the visible universe (as we know it today), no other universe could
spring out of the vacuum because it's being prevented by the existence of the current universe
which is exerting some sort of force that seems to be preventing other Big Bangs from
happening. But, when spacetime has expanded to a greater diameter than the visible universe,
other universes can spring into existence in the same way because they can't feel the
influence of the first universe.
Think of the first universe as being at the centre of an imaginary bubble the size of the visible
universe which has not yet been filled by spacetime. When it has, imagine placing other
bubbles on the first bubble; you can only place a fixed number of bubbles. For example, if
you had a circle to represent the first bubble, you can fit a maximum of 6 other circles around
it. Apparently, you can stack 12 such bubbles on a spherical bubble. That corresponds to 12
new universes i.e. we'll have a multiverse where each universe is outside the influence of the
other universes. As Guth, Linde, and Valenkov theorised, because spacetime is expanding
faster than the universe, eventually the new universes will have a large enough space which is
outside the influence of the other universes.
They called it the Swiss cheese analogy where the holes in the cheese represent the individual
universes and the Swiss cheese itself is the multiverse. The Swiss cheese will be expanding
significantly faster than the universes. Ignore the expansion of the universes and concentrate
on the expansion of the Swiss cheese. Eventually, enough space will form between the
universes for a new universe to form. So the Swiss cheese represents the multiverse.
My explanation to this is that the presence of one universe has some influence that prevents
other universes from exploding into existence. But this influence disappears when the space
outside the existing universe is greater in size than that of the visible universe. This enables
another Big Bang to occur thus producing a new universe.
However, because the individual universes cannot communicate with each other, they cannot
be scientifically verified hence it can't be falsified. So how can you prove such a theory? This
is the reason why many scientists don't want to include the multiverse in mainstream science
as it needs exemption from the need to be falsified which undermines the trust of the general
public in science.
Although this is the province of science fiction, the multiverse can be approached in a
scientific manner at least within each individual universe within it.
Wikipedia's take on the subject is as follows:
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of finite and infinite possible
universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise
everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and
constants that describe them.
The various universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes"
or "alternate universes."
In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his
audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic." He said that, when his Nobel
equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all
really happen simultaneously." This is the earliest known reference to the multiverse.
The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it, and the relationships
among these universes differ from one multiverse hypothesis to another. Multiple universes
have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy,
transpersonal psychology, and literature, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these
contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes",
"interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities",
"alternate timelines", and "dimensional planes".
The physics community continues to debate the multiverse hypothesis. Prominent physicists
disagree about whether the multiverse exists. Some physicists say the multiverse is not a
legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to
exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in
science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics.
Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis
because it cannot be falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific
experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has
famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all
possible outcomes.
In 2007, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggested that if the multiverse existed, "the hope
of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses and other constants
of the standard model that we observe in our Big Bang is doomed, for their values would be
an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live".
In the Many-Worlds Interpretation (WMI) of Quantum Mechanics, every possible solution of
the wave equation is real. It implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real,
each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states
there is a very large number of universes - perhaps infinite, and everything that could
possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other
universe or universes.
Some scientists, who believe in time travel, say that when you go back to the past, you
actually go back to a different version of our universe in the past i.e. you can't meet your
grandfather and create the grandfather paradox. If this is right, some people from the future
version of our universe can come to our present which is their past. Since this has never been
observed, time travel is impossible let alone the existence of parallel universes.
The Swiss Cheese model is an example of a multiverse which has multiple universes that
have independent existence; and the WMI model is an example of parallel universes which
exist at the same time and are derived from each other. The WMI is the most ludicrous model
of them all and yet it's seriously considered by mainstream scientists mainly because it's a
result of the solutions to the wave equations of Quantum Mechanics. To me, this is the
downfall of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein was right not to accept it; well he did accept its
correctness but described it as incomplete.
The parallel universes in String Theory are due to the solutions of its equations which are
based on an 11-dimensional concept. I don't believe in multidimensional theories that are
greater than 3 dimensions. This means that time is not a dimension because it's unidirectional
and is always progressing along it at an unchanging rate that's independent of what's going on
around it despite what Einstein says. I'll say more about time travel in my forthcoming book
on relativity because General Relativity implies time travel.
Think about time travel in this way: suppose a time machine was built to take you a million
years into the past but it takes 2 years to get there at the same spot but a million years in the
past. Does that mean that, while you were in transit to the past, time for you was going in
forward time or backward time?
We can create another form of the twins paradox. This time, we use 30 year-old twins: one
went into the time machine and the other stayed in mission control. This means that the
travelling twin aged 4 years during the round trip assuming he came back to a time 1 second
after launch. The traveller will find himself 4 years older than his twin. But, as Einstein said,
time travel to the past is impossible. Scientists today (c.2016) are putting words in Einstein's
mouth and not only saying that Einstein said so but also that the laws of physics allow it.
I'm now convinced that the current theories of science that allow time travel are completely
false. These laws of physics allow time travel because they are mathematical not natural ones.
The obvious solution is to abandon these mathematics-based laws and replace them with
natural ones that use descriptive language. We can still use mathematics as a tool to help
make predictions using the new natural laws of physics.
Stanford University describes the Many Worlds Interpretation as:
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics holds that there are many
worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time as our own. The existence of the
other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum
theory and thus from all physics.
This implies that there are an infinity of parallel universes existing at the same time and
place. This is physically impossible as it requires an infinity of matter to have been created. It
also implies that an infinity of possible futures already exist; the actions that you take
determines your path through the maze of parallel universes - you only experience one of
them at a time.
This also implies that there is an infinity of different paths that can be taken at the same time
and place - what a waste. I don't believe in theories that have infinities or use zero quantities
such as massless particles. So, I'm giving this theory a wide berth.
String theory is based on 10- or 11-dimensions depending on which version you take. The
dimensions are the 4 dimensions we know about (3D space + time) and the others are curled
up so that we don't become aware of them. In order for the Standard Model to work, scientists
had to assume that the fundamental particles have to be massless. For this, the Higgs field and
boson had to be invented. The same is required for String Theory: it'll work only with 10 or
11 dimensions. To me, this theory is false from day one; no need to go any further.
These strange theories are quirks of the abstract mathematical models introduced to derive
theories which become known as physical science when they need interpretation into physical
science. I'm giving these theories a miss because I can't explain them in terms of
electromagnetism - the one force of nature.
###
Chapter 7: Quantum Fluctuations
My belief is that mass can neither be created nor destroyed only changed to other forms. I say
‘mass’ because I believe that photons of energy have mass as given by the relation m=E/c2
which is derived from E=mc2. I also believe that any theory that deals with infinities or
massless particles is a false one. Because of this, I tend to sympathise with religious people
whom I call ‘Creatorists’ i.e. they believe that a creator created the universe and everything
within it. Whether scientists like it or not, it is they who are ‘Creationists’ as they believe the
universe was created from nothing. Using poetic licence, we can call them ‘Nothingists’ but
that will never catch on.
Cosmologists tell us that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), as one of the laws of
physics, allows energy to be borrowed provided it’s paid back within a short time. The HUP
formula that governs this law is ΔE.Δt < h/4π; where ΔE is the uncertainty in energy i.e. the
amount of energy borrowed; Δt is the uncertainty in time i.e. the period the energy is
borrowed for; and h is Planck’s constant.
If ΔE is 1000 J then Δt can be no more than h/4000π i.e. the more energy you borrow, the less
time you can borrow it for. Lawrence Krauss tells us that the laws of physics allow us to do
that. That means we’re living on borrowed time and energy. The HUP may be an accepted
law of physics but it’s not a law of nature. It was arrived at by a human who, like the rest of
us, is capable of human error. And this is definitely an erroneous one or, at least, the way it’s
being used in this situation.
Werner Heisenberg formulated the HUP to show that there's a minimum error in any
measurement because the act of measurement interferes with what is being measured. When I
was at school, the example they gave us is measuring the pressure of a tyre. In order to do
that, you have to stick a pressure gauge in the inlet valve where the gauge takes a sample of
the air in the tyre. The fact that you have taken a sample means that you've reduced the actual
pressure of the tyre ever so slightly. The tyre can be deflated by taking too many pressure
readings and each subsequent reading will be lower than the previous one. But physicists are
using it to create energy from nothing.
Some Astrophysicist explain the Quantum Fluctuations as being a property of empty space
i.e. that it has what they call vacuum energy. This is described as a false vacuum containing
virtual particles which are similar to matter-antimatter particles except that they’re not real
hence they’re called virtual particles. However, the HUP allows them to become real for a
short time. The appearances and disappearances of these virtual particles are called Quantum
Fluctuations (QFs). I hasten to add that scientists claim that, when virtual particles come into
existence, they become real. I can go along with that as long as you don’t inflate one of them
to the size of the universe we know today as this breaks the principle of conservation of
energy as well as the HUP.
Because virtual particles come into existence as real particle-antiparticle pairs, they annihilate
each other. This is not the same as them disappearing out of existence i.e. they produce
energy as a product of annihilation. So does this energy disappear out of existence? If not,
then we have a creation situation which violates conservation laws.
People have been fooled into thinking that antimatter has anti-mass or even negative mass;
that’s not true. I’ve heard people say that, because virtual particles become real particles, the
particles and the antiparticles cancel each other out i.e. the conservation of mass is not
violated. This is OK according to this misconception; but an antiparticle has real mass which
means that the conservation of mass IS being violated well before they annihilate each other.
Stephen Hawking is towing the Quantum Mechanics line of virtual particles and used it to
explain that Black Holes evaporate eventually by what is known as Hawking radiation. This
is where virtual particle-antiparticle pairs become real at the event horizon of a black hole.
Then the antiparticle is sucked into the black hole thus annihilating its mass while the particle
escapes the event horizon as Hawking radiation. This theory is also false because it uses
virtual particles.
Another proof of the existence of virtual particles used a metal safe and asked what is left
when you empty the contents of the safe including the air? Will you get nothing? Then went
on to explain that the space has virtual particles that come into existence every now and
again. I can go along with that for a different reason because this time we have material
enclosing the empty space except that the particles are not virtual.
You see, the walls of the safe are made of metal which is made of atoms which are made of
electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. The clouds of electrons and nuclei emit electromagnetic
fields and these are carried by photons, the force carriers. So this time, the explanation is
almost correct. In some circles, the carriers of the electromagnetic force are virtual photons
but I don’t believe in virtual particles. However, at the beginning of time, there was no
material to give particles, virtual or otherwise.
Some Astrophysicists, like Lawrence Krauss, insist that the total energy of the universe is
zero implying that negative matter and negative energy is elsewhere in the cosmos that we
can’t reach. If they can’t reach each other, how can they cancel each other out? These
scientists just can’t get round the principle of conservation of energy so they invent new
bizarre theories to achieve it.
Some scientific laws were seen as bizarre centuries ago, but are accepted now. This worries
me because some accepted bizarre theories turned out not to be solid after all. I’m avoiding
becoming a victim of famous last words.
Besides, Einstein left us the legacy of the spacetime continuum. This forced Cosmologists to
explain how the fabric of the bendable spacetime was created. You can’t borrow energy until
you’ve created spacetime to put in. Although they talk about both of them, they don’t talk
about them at the same time. I mean when somebody asks what happened before the Big
Bang, their stock answer is that time hasn’t started so the question is invalid. Stephen
Hawking says that you can’t go south of the South Pole.
It seems that current science theories are treated as facts and lay people put their own
assumptions on them reaching wrong conclusions like antiparticles have negative mass which
cancels out the positive mass of the positive mass particles; and when an antiparticle
annihilates a particle, they disappear out of existence when in fact they form energy
according to E = mc2.
Do QFs borrow spacetime just before they borrow time and energy? If so, how much
spacetime is borrowed? An eternity? Cosmologists tell us that spacetime is being created all
the time as the universe expands which means that you can’t be outside the universe. First, if
the universe clock started when spacetime was created, that would mean only one universe
was created - you can’t have more than one clock, or can you? Besides, in what timeframe
did these QFs occur? And at what frequency? Did they occur in the same position or different
positions? These questions seem to imply that time and space are eternal as they facilitate the
occurrence of QFs.
In a YouTube video “Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking The Story of Everything”,
Hawking said: “Follow the clues and we can deduce that a very long time ago, the universe
simply burst into existence - an event called the Big Bang”. He didn’t say what caused it e.g.
QFs that are allowed by the HUP. He went on to say: “The Big Bang happened in total
darkness as light didn’t exist yet... A view from the outside is impossible... space didn’t exist
either; so there was no outside. The only place was inside... the early universe... was just a
tiny ultra hot fog of energy.” If space didn’t exist, where did this “fog of energy” exist?
Many Cosmologists and Astrophysicists claim that spacetime was created with the QF that
became the source of inflation which Hawking went on to explain: “The universe simply
inflated itself into existence; increasing from the size of an atom to the size of an orange in
under a trillionth of a second and it continued to expand and cool... In 100 seconds, it was as
big as our solar system - trillions of miles across... The pure energy began to cool and
produce matter in the form of trillions of sub-atomic particles. Some of this was matter, the
stuff we’re made of... the rest was antimatter - the opposite of matter.”
He didn’t specify which sub-atomic particles were matter and which were antimatter. This is
important because of what happened next: “When the two meet, they annihilate each other...
Fortunately, there was just a bit more matter than antimatter; just 1 in a billion matter
particles survived... After about 330 thousand years, the universe became visible”. It’s like
Hawking was speaking in layman’s terms i.e. for an unscientific audience, I can’t criticise
him for that. But, he doesn’t give people like me more clues to help me create a scientific
storyboard of how the universe began.
He seems to be towing the official line minus the QFs; presumably he thinks it’s over the
heads of his audience. But that’s what’s wrong with the official line: the seed of the universe
starting with a small amount of very hot energy in zero volume - even the word singularity
wasn’t used in case it confused his audience. Hawking said “there was only inside” implying
that the seed energy existed in a small amount of space yet he believes in singularities - you
can’t be inside nothing!
It also means that there are 2 types of creation: the creation of spacetime and the creation of
energy which produce synchronisation difficulties. The main flaw of the official Big Bang
theory is that energy was transformed into matter and antimatter unequally giving rise to the
matter-antimatter asymmetry. Another flaw is that matter and antimatter annihilated each
other in a wasteful manner. This theory doesn’t add up.
When Cosmologists describe the creation of the universe, they don’t give precise scientific
information. Paul Dirac postulated the existence of the anti-electron which was subsequently
found and renamed the positron. No direct mention of the positron in the Big Bang theory
maybe perhaps as anti-electrons. Some accounts of the Big Bang include a mention of
quarks; but quarks don’t annihilate antiquarks - they simply form mesons which decay into
photons, electrons and positrons with extremely short half-lives. This proves that quarks
don’t exist now because they have a half-life of less than 10-9 seconds, some less than 10-25
seconds. How can you call them particles when you can't build anything out of them?
The tragedy is, scientists are trying to make muonic hydrogen. This is where a proton is
orbited by a muon which has a lifetime of around 2.5 X 10-6 seconds. Does the bound muon
become stable like the bound neutron? But the muon is 200 times the mass of the electron.
Wouldn't this pose angular momentum problems? This reminds me when somebody asked a
group of 15-year-olds what's the difference between matter and antimatter? A bright spark
said if matter atoms are made of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, an antimatter atom would
have electrons in the nucleus orbited by protons. There are 2 problems with this structure: 1)
The nucleus would have much less mass so it wouldn't be a strong enough fulcrum for the
orbiting protons and 2) the protons would need a very strong force to get them to rotate
around a light nucleus. Besides, this arrangement wouldn't preserve the angular momentum.
Imagine that electrons, positrons, quarks, and antiquarks were created. Which of them were
matter and which were antimatter? Remember, quarks and antiquarks form mesons which
decay into photons, electrons and positrons. That leaves us with the electrons and positrons to
be matter and antimatter. Did they annihilate each other and only electrons survived? You
see, this theory doesn’t add up. Maybe that’s why Cosmologists are shying away from giving
us precise details - they know it doesn’t add up. I feel that’s the reason why the Standard
Model doesn’t work; and neither will the Supersymmetry Layer nor will String theory with
its 11 dimensions.
My conclusion is that time and space are eternal and infinite and that time is not a dimension
as it’s unidirectional. Also, no event is in control of the speed of time nor its direction i.e.
time is invariant. This means that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is wrong as it
depends on variable spacetime that can be curved - I don’t believe in curved space let alone
curved spacetime. The curvature of space that Einstein talks about is mimicking the
equipotentials of the Newtonian gravitational field. We can get a much better theory by using
gravitational field calculation of infinite and eternal space rather than tensor mathematics of
curved spacetime.
According to my theory, the initial mass of the universe existed in a small but finite volume
not a zero-volume singularity. This means that blackholes cannot be singularities as their
finite mass cannot occupy zero volume of space. Einstein protagonists claim that General
Relativity predicts singularities - that’s its downfall.
###
Chapter 8: Cosmic Inflation
Cosmic Inflation was introduced to explain many problems with the original Big Bang theory
one of which is the flatness problem. This can be understood in terms of the density of the
universe. The density parameter is a measure of the amount of gravitating material in the
universe, usually denoted by the Greek letter omega (Ω) and also known as the flatness
parameter.
Ω is defined in such a way that if spacetime is exactly flat, Ω=1. One of the great puzzles in
cosmology was the fact that the actual density of the universe today is very close to this
critical value – certainly within a factor of 10. This is curious because, as the universe
expands from the Big Bang, the expansion will push the density parameter away from the
critical value.
If the universe starts out with the Ω < 1, Ω gets smaller as the universe ages; while if the
universe starts out with Ω > 1, Ω will get bigger as the universe ages. The fact that Ω is
between 0.1 and 1 today means that in the first second of the Big Bang, it was precisely 1 to
within 1 part in 1060. The inference being that Ω has always was and always will be 1. This
implies that there must be a large amount of dark matter in the universe. Otherwise, the
universe was made flat by Cosmic Inflation.
Cosmologists and Physicists tell us that a QF was inflated before it disappeared out of
existence i.e. before the borrowed energy was paid back. What the scientists are implying is
that the borrowed energy wasn’t paid back. This violates the conditions for borrowing the
energy under the HUP rules. This is like Wall St Bankers borrowing money that didn’t exist
and with no intention of paying it back – the FED printed it, thus diluting the value of the
existing dollars.
I heard that the Charge-Parity (CP) Symmetry was violated and the guy who discovered this
violation won a Nobel Prize in Physics. Instead of scrapping CP Symmetry, they created the
CP Violation rule which allows conditions to occur despite them violating CP Symmetry. If a
theory is proved wrong, just fudge it. This is the unacceptable face of scientific thinking and
of one of the ‘epicycles’ of modern scientific theories.
Nevertheless, we’re told that one QF got inflated and Professor Alan Guth of MIT tells us
that the inflation was caused by negative pressure which itself is caused by ‘repulsive’
gravity. So, to explain inflation, scientists created repulsive gravity which creates negative
pressure that drives the inflation so that the negative pressure remains constant. This is like
Ptolemy inventing epicycles to explain the geocentric universe.
Although I can’t believe that because it’s creating energy without permission, I’ll swallow
my pride and accept inflation. The laws of physics tell us that if you increase the volume, the
pressure decreases. Not according to Professor Guth – the negative pressure remains constant
i.e. more of it is created to maintain it at constant value but he doesn’t say anything about
more of it being created.
Under protest, I’ll accept that too. But more energy is being created from the negative
pressure aka repulsive gravity. In fact, the positive energy was doubling every 10 -43 seconds
so we only need 100 doublings to create all the energy needed to form the universe. When
asked what happened to the negative pressure, Guth replied that at some point, it decayed into
normal matter and that brought inflation to an end but the doubling was at a higher rate than
the decay. The above description violates the laws of physics.
In a debate (outside MIT) the audience asked: when were the laws of physics created. The
panellists were unanimous with the reply that they were created at the same time as
spacetime. But spacetime is required for QFs to occur. Presumably, spacetime was created
just before the first QF.
My take on the laws of physics is that they’re not physical entities that need to be created.
They occur as a result of the presence of matter e.g. the electrostatic force is proportional to
the product of 2 charges divided by the square of the distance between them the latter being
the inverse square law. Before the electrostatic force can come about, the electric charges
have to exist. The force between 2 charges is an intrinsic property of the charges and the law
that governs it is derived from observation – the law doesn’t force matter to behave the way it
does; otherwise we don’t need the matter.
This is in contrast to Einstein’s description of the effect of mass on spacetime: “Mass tells
spacetime how to bend, and spacetime tells mass how to move”. Sounds elegant and
compelling but is complete rubbish. Masses generate gravity and gravity tells masses how to
behave – space and time are separate, eternal, and invariant. Space is the location where
events occur; it doesn’t interfere with what’s happening within the space. You could say that
masses determine each others’ behaviour by virtue of the gravity between them.
When I was at High School, I tested the inverse square law with 2 low power magnets.
According to the law, if you attempt to make 2 south poles touch, the repulsive forces will
become infinite; i.e. it’s impossible to make them touch irrespective of how weak the
magnetic field is. But I thought otherwise and successfully made them touch. The teacher
explained that the alignment of the magnetic domains was disrupted.
Personally, I think that the electron orbits were deformed by the mutual repulsive forces.
Since it’s the electrons that give rise to the magnetism (known as paramagnetism) and hence,
the magnetic domains, the deformed orbitals automatically deformed the magnetic domains
so that the inverse square law no longer applied in the direction I was pushing the magnets.
A similar thing happens with blackholes: when a star collapses, a smaller mass occupies an
even smaller volume hence the gravity at the surface will be much greater. But it cannot
collapse into a singularity (a point of zero volume) because you need a certain volume to put
the mass in. Furthermore, as the star gets smaller and smaller, it gets more and more compact
i.e. it develops a resistance to further collapse with each collapse. When that resistance > the
gravitational pull, collapsing stops. You can do an experiment at home: fold any piece of
paper in half as many times as you can. The maximum is 8 folds but see how many you can
do. It’s believed that this is independent of the size and thickness of the paper.
Blackholes are described as the “suckiest” things in the universe. This may be true if you’re
close enough; but the universe is safe because the gravitational pull is less than that of the
original star as it contains less mass than the original – when a star collapses, it explodes as a
supernova shedding some of its mass. So if you weren’t in danger from the original star, then
you’re even safer from the blackhole.
I brought in blackholes because Einstein’s General Relativity predicted and describes them as
quantum singularities of zero volume with all the mass of the original star. Also many
scientists claim that the universe started from a singularity of infinite density because it’s zero
volume.
Present day physicists are trying to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics to
produce Quantum Gravity. All they’re getting is “an infinity of infinities”. They need to
resolve the term that produces the infinities in General Relativity that causes singularities to
be predicted – it’s the term that’s divided by r.
Similarly, the Inverse Square Law needs to be normalised to remove the possibility of an
infinity e.g. F α 1/r2 can be normalised to F α 1/(r+γ)2 where γ is a function of r that returns a
non-zero number. This can be deduced from the effect of the repulsive forces on the magnetic
domains (or orbitals) in the High School experiment that I did and explained above. This also
explains why a black hole cannot collapse into a singularity.
In fact, it can be applied to any field theory that uses the inverse square law such as
Coulomb’s law of electrostatic forces; and even General Relativity which is based on
Newton’s law of gravitation. Maybe for General Relativity, it’ll remove the infinities and
prevent it from predicting singularities as they cannot exist anyway.
Newton’s law of gravitation doesn’t predict singularities because the smallest r is the sum of
the distances to the centre of the masses from their surface because each mass has to have a
finite volume. Hence r can never be zero which means no singularities.
My conclusion is that Cosmic Inflation is another ‘epicycle’ to iron out wrong things with
scientific theories. In other words, I believe it’s wrong and I’m not alone in this. Scientists,
like Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, also believe that Inflation, as currently (2016)
described, is not simple, explanatory, or predictive. Besides, it’s an inflationary multiverse
which depends on fine tuning that the inflationary model was supposed to get rid of.
###
Chapter 9: Matter and Antimatter
Cosmologists tell us that, in the early universe, matter and antimatter were created almost
equally. Presumably, electrons and positrons; and quarks and antiquarks were formed almost
equally. These particles annihilated each other into energy. But, for every 1 billion particles,
1 matter particle survived. This inequality of matter against antimatter is called the matterantimatter asymmetry. Scientists are now searching for proof of this asymmetry by searching
for the ‘magnetic dipole moment’ on the electron. So far, they haven’t found it; but they
haven’t given up. They’re going to build more and more sensitive equipment. If the electron
is a pure charge, then they’ll never find it. Also, their findings so far tell them that the charge
on the electron is distributed smoothly and spherically. This implies that the electron doesn’t
have sub-structure.
At this stage of the development of my theory, I’m assuming that the electron and positron
are pure charges so that they won’t have any magnetic dipole moments. But this is in keeping
with the fact that there is no matter-antimatter asymmetry because Carl Anderson has proved
that photons split into electron-positron pair in exactly equal amounts. Personally, I don’t
know what a magnetic dipole moment on the electron has anything to do with the matterantimatter asymmetry. Fortunately, I don’t have to deal with that.
Cosmologists tell us that had antimatter survived, we would’ve ended up with an antimatter
universe where antimatter lovers driving antimatter cars making antimatter love under
antimatter moons and so on. However, we won’t be calling it antimatter, we’ll be calling it
matter and what didn’t survive, we would’ve called antimatter. I believe Lawrence Krauss
said that. This means that matter and antimatter are named arbitrarily or, better still, they’re
defined that way.
Some Cosmologists even say that some antimatter may have survived the annihilation
process and are now occupying a different region of space in the universe. To me this is
superfluous because if electrons and positrons are matter and antimatter respectively, then
what we call matter is actually composed of electrons and positrons i.e. composite matter is
made up of matter and antimatter. This means that the name antimatter doesn’t really apply –
it’s a figment of scientists’ imagination.
Radioactivity has shown that atomic electrons can be captured by a nucleus and a nucleus can
emit β+ (positron) as well as β– (electron) particles and radiate gamma rays which, eventually,
split into electron-positron pairs. This means that electrons and positrons play a major part in
the structure of the nucleons.
According to the current definition of antimatter e.g. that the positron is antimatter (an antielectron), the fact that a radioactive nucleus can emit a positron implies that either the
positron has been hiding inside such a nucleus; or that it’s created spontaneously before
emission with the help of a W+ particle presumably. But I don’t believe in the latter because
the W+ particle is the carrier boson of the Weak Nuclear force which I’ll prove to be a form
of the electromagnetic force i.e. due to nuclear bonding using electrons as in molecular
bonding.
So, not all antimatter was destroyed in the early universe. Besides, others survived inside
mesons without annihilating each other – mesons are quark-antiquark particles. This is
another reason why I don’t believe in quarks and gluons the first being that scientists can’t
isolate them. I can use poetic licence, and mesons, to prove that nature uses matter and
antimatter to make higher forms of matter. Quantum Field Theorists (QFT) couldn’t find the
quark and gluon fields either which supports my theory that they don’t exist. But I can’t
support QFT because it’s made up of 6 fields and Einstein was looking for one unified field
theory to explain all of natural phenomena.
In fact, scientists are so obsessed with antimatter that they’re hell bent on creating it starting
with anti-hydrogen. They’ve defined an antimatter atom as being composed of a nucleus of
anti-protons and anti-neutrons orbited by positrons in shells as in current atomic structures. In
terms of the structure of anti-protons and anti-neutrons, whereas a matter proton is composed
of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark; an anti-proton will be composed of 2 anti-up quarks and 1
anti-down quark. Similarly, a neutron is composed of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks; so an
anti-neutron will be made of 1 anti-up quark and 2 anti-down quarks.
Since I don’t believe in quarks, my definition of an anti-proton is that: it has a nucleus of
electrons glued together by neutrinos and orbited by positrons. Anti-neutrons would be
structured the same as the anti-protons but with equal numbers of electrons and positrons.
Using my theory, it would be extremely difficult to construct anti-particles and it’s this
difficulty that led me to believe that there’s no such thing as antimatter but not impossible.
However, in my theory there’s another way of making a negative proton – make a neutron
accept another electron. But this is not the same as an anti-proton – it’s the structure of the
particle as a whole that determines whether it’s truly antimatter. The anti-proton that the
scientists claim to have made is probably a negative proton and not a true anti-proton. It’s
better to do away with the term antimatter to describe nature and reserve it for artificial
matter that you can make in the laboratory.
Since scientists use the quark theory and quarks cannot be isolated, they’ll have to coax the
quarks to change into antiquarks simultaneously and in situ. Otherwise they’ll split into
mesons which will eventually decay into electrons and positrons. Mind you this is a good
source of positrons once an anti-proton has been created. There’s absolutely no danger of the
quarks and antiquarks annihilating each other; not with all those gluons present. This implies
that there are no anti-gluons – a gluon is its own antiparticle. Scientists don’t tell us if quarks
have structure as they treat them as fundamental particles. But, some scientists are beginning
to suspect that quarks do have structure.
Since antimatter is a question of definition, any antimatter produced would be artificial and
doesn’t exist in nature or rather the cosmos (famous last words). Looking for such substances
in the cosmos would be a wild goose chase and a waste of time and money. Besides, once
antimatter has been produced, users will have a containment problem which will require more
energy than it can produce. Furthermore, the longer you store it, the more expensive it
becomes. Its volatility makes it dangerous as it will annihilate any matter it comes into
contact with.
My guess is that the antimatter they’ll produce isn’t true antimatter but will be negative
protons with ordinary neutrons in the nucleus orbited by positrons. That is, the nucleons
won’t be made of true antimatter as per definition. But it’ll still be called antimatter and used
as such.
I’ve noticed that scientists use abstract mathematical models to explain scientific and natural
phenomena. At least, with antimatter, we’ll have a substance to work with but will its
properties be described in terms of abstract mathematical models?
###
Chapter 10: Fundamental Particles
A fundamental (elementary) particle is an irreducible component of other particles. This
means that a photon is not a fundamental particle because it splits into 2 particles which
implies that photons do have mass. My theory has only 2 fundamental particles: electron and
positron which are the building blocks of all matter in the universe. That’s right the positron
is not antimatter as I don’t believe in antimatter as described by scientists.
Cosmologists tell us that at the end of inflation, the universe was at its brightest with all that
concentrated energy. As it cooled, it condensed into matter and antimatter in the form of
electrons, quarks, and neutrinos and their antimatter counterparts Then a battle for dominance
raged between matter and antimatter which annihilated each other into energy. Fortunately,
for every billion particles, one matter particle survived. This implies that matter and
antimatter were not created equally which scientists call the matter-antimatter asymmetry that
they’re looking for in the form of the magnetic dipole moment of the electron.
But where I differ from them is that there’s no matter-antimatter asymmetry because
electrons and positrons were created in equal numbers and no quarks were formed at all.
Furthermore, all particles survived the annihilation process – God is not wasteful. Further, I
assume the electron and positron to be pure charges and wouldn’t have a magnetic dipole
moment; so scientists are wasting their time looking for it. This will prove that the asymmetry
doesn’t exist and that the current theory is deeply flawed.
If they do find the magnetic dipole moment of the electron, all it’ll mean is that the electron
has substructure despite its small size; it won’t mean that there’s matter-antimatter
asymmetry. Nothing will make me happier if this happens as I can revert to my original
theory where electric charges were the only particles that were created and everything else
was created from them..
From these, the neutrino will be formed like the neutral pion; the positive charges will clump
together, with the help of the neutrinos, to form the nuclei of positrons and electrons; and the
negative charges will orbit the nuclei just as in atomic structure. The positron will have an
excess positive charge in its nucleus and the electron will have an excess negative charge in
its orbitals.
I’ve learnt about bremstrahlung radiation which means ‘braking radiation’ because it’s
produced when an electron slows down without changing orbit. Although it’s EM radiation, it
has a continuous spectrum i.e. it’s not quantised. This supports my original theory where
electrons are made of smaller charged particles – it loses some of these charges in the form of
lower energy photons. However, this means that they’ll still be quantised at a lower level.
This can be used to explain what happens when an electron doesn’t receive enough energy to
jump from one orbital to another. What happens to the energy already absorbed is that it’s
radiated as bremstrahlung radiation which causes the electron velocity to slow down. This
also means that when an electron absorbs insufficient energy to make the jump, it speeds up
and it’s only losing the velocity it gained during absorption.
As the universe cooled further, the surviving quarks became confined within protons and
neutrons where gluons miraculously appeared to keep the peace – no mention of the other
fundamental particles in the Standard Model yet; nor did they tell us what the flavours of the
surviving quarks are. I’m assuming they’re the up and down quarks. As the universe
continued to cool, the electrons became bound to the protons to form atoms of hydrogen.
We’re told that helium and traces of lithium were also produce in the ratio H:He:Li of
75%:25%:trace.
So, inflation knew how many extra electrons and how many extra quarks to manufacture –
that sounds like intelligent design by nothing. Because only 1 matter particle per 1 billion
particles survived, it means that a billion times the mass of the universe was intelligently
created by coincidence. Of course we can have either extra electrons or extra quarks floating
about in the universe. But, when the universe cooled enough, quarks couldn’t exist in the
free state; so we can safely assume that no extra free quarks were created.
There will also be gazillions of tons of energy as a result of the annihilation but this will have
been trapped by the plasma anyway. Maybe this is the dark energy that scientists are talking
about and the reason why we can’t detect it is because it has travelled beyond our reach. So
how did we detect the CMB?
The fundamental particles at this stage of development of the universe are the photon, the
electron, the neutrino and the up and down quarks. The heavier quarks are constituents of
heavy hadrons which are unstable. Presumably, the heavier quarks are also unstable and
cannot survive to the present day; yet they’re present in the table of the Standard Model
whose particles are produced in the upper atmosphere and in particle accelerators.
The plasma continued to expand and cool enough for the quarks to become confined in
protons and neutrons which eventually combined to form nuclei. But, as it continued to
expand and cool, atoms began to form as the nuclei acquired electrons and the glow began to
fade. This period is known as the afterglow. The formation of neutral atoms allowed the
trapped radiation to escape. This is now detected as the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation as it has been Doppler shifted into the microwave section of the electromagnetic
spectrum.
The Standard Model of particles and forces has been found NOT to work as of November
2006 according to Wikipedia (this article has been deleted). Now we know why it doesn't
work. Scientists are now building a new layer on top of the existing model that doesn’t work.
This layer is called “supersymmetry” (SuSy) and its particles are “super-particles”
sometimes called Spartacus I mean sparticles – it’s just the existing particles prefixed by the
letter “s”.
Also, a new model for explaining the origin of particles is being developed. It’s called
“String Theory” and it requires 11 dimensions so far. Nature is simple and elegant and it’s
not as complicated as scientists would have you believe. Referring to Occam’s razor, you get
the feeling that future theories are becoming more and more complicated which makes them
further and further removed from reality. Hence, they become false.
I believe that the only fundamental particles are the electron and the positron; everything else
is composed of these particles. However, the neutrino poses an anomaly for my theory. For
example, when protons collide, a zoo of unstable particles of high energy are produced that
decay into leptons i.e. electrons, positrons and neutrinos. To me this implies that protons are
made of electrons, positrons and neutrinos.
My theory suggests that a proton/neutron has a nucleus of positrons glued together by
neutrinos and orbited by electrons in shells just like in atoms. The nucleus of a proton will
have an excess of 1 positron giving it a net positive charge. Neutrons will have the same
structure as a proton but will have equal numbers of electrons and positrons giving it no
overall charge. It’s now easy to see why a neutron decays into a proton and an electron – the
neutrino is an anomaly at this stage of the development of my theory.
The Standard Model suggests protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons and
heavier hadrons are made of heavier quarks. Scientists are now telling us that 90% of the
mass of a proton is due to the massless gluon and the quarks only make up the remaining
10%. That’s like building a house that’s 90% mortar and 10% bricks – the gluons are
supposed to glue the quarks together!
Scientists use the weak force to explain the neutron decay by saying that a down quark
changes to an up quark by releasing a W– particle that decays into an electron and a
neutrino. The W– particle is more massive than the neutron. Where does that extra mass come
from? It's borrowed from the quantum vacuum and paid back when it decays.
So, my conclusion is that the only fundamental particles are the electron, the positron, and
possibly the neutrino. Although the photon existed in the Big Bang, it’s not a fundamental
particle because it’s not a constituent of any other particle and it splits into 2 particles
anyway. To prove this, consider what scientists are doing with their particle smashers. In this
case, they’re smashing protons. Among the particles in the shower produced, are pions i.e. π+,
π–, and π0. Remember these are constituents of protons. The π+ decays into a positron; the π–
decays into an electron; and the π0 decays into γ-rays which subsequently split into electronpositron pairs.
This proves that protons are essentially made of electrons and positrons. Do the scientists
ever ask themselves how do mesons like the pion change into leptons when they themselves
are made of quarks? This proves, in general, that mesons are made of electrons and positrons.
This means that there’s no such thing as baryons and mesons. So what’s all this talk about
flavours, colours, gluons etc? Sheer fantasy, that’s what it is.
My recent research led me to find that there's a conservation law known as the law of baryon
conservation. This is the number of baryons you start with must be equal to the number of
baryons you end up with. This is similar to the law of lepton conservation. For example,
when a neutron (baryon) decays into a proton (baryon) and an electron (lepton), the baryon
number is conserved. But the lepton number has increased as there was no lepton before the
decay now there is one after the decay. To balance this out, they've included an antineutrino
(anti-lepton) which cancels out the new lepton character. What a palaver.
Some conservation laws are unnecessary as they seem to be contrived. In the neutron decay,
the existence of an electron after the decay doesn't need its character cancelled out; if there's
an imbalance of energy and/or momentum, then a particle can be introduced to conserve
energy and/or momentum. From the definition of a neutrino, apart from its lepton character, it
can be replaced by a photon as the latter has energy and momentum. Science has been fooled
by Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is constant. This led scientists to conclude that
if a particle doesn't travel at the speed of light, it's not a photon. Besides, neutrinos have mass
and photons are massless - another fallacy. Also, photons are waves and neutrinos are not.
This is debateable because, every particle displays the DeBroglie wavelength i.e. neutrinos
must display wave behaviour - it's the mass that threw scientists off-balance.
Furthermore, quarks don't have baryon characteristics; yet when they're confined into
baryons, the baryon number is violated because on the left hand side (before confinement)
baryon number = 0 and on the right hand side (after confinement) baryon number = 1. To me,
this proves that this type of conservation law is artificial just like the symmetry laws. I mean
as soon as symmetry was broken, scientists should've abandoned symmetry laws; otherwise
your results will become unreliable as they'll be contaminated. With my theory, you don't
need baryon conservation as quarks don't exist in the first place.
Another way of looking at particle smashers, or rather the mechanism of smashing particles;
is to consider how the particles are smashed together:
First, they’re accelerated to near the speed of light
Then their beams are forced to collide in a test chamber (detector)
When they’re accelerated to near the speed of light, they gain relativistic mass according to
Einstein’s E=mc2. In the case of protons, by the time they collide, they’re many times their
original mass. So the debris is no longer the constituents of the original protons. In other
words, particle accelerators create particles from the energy they are fed. That means that the
Higgs boson was artificially created – they proved nothing. Fortunately, my theory doesn’t
need the Higgs field – particles were created with mass as an intrinsic property.
There are 2 ways to describe how the universe was started:
Light was created, by whatever means, which split into electron-positrons pairs;
Equal numbers of electrons and positrons were created by whatever means.
Sufficient mass/energy was created to form the universe we know today. Whichever method
was used, we ended up with a lot of electrons and positrons what Cosmologists call matter
and antimatter respectively. Some scientists actually said that electrons, quarks and
antiquarks were formed and it’s the quarks and antiquarks that are matter and antimatter.
In conclusion, the Standard Model should be scrapped and the supersymmetry, superparticles, and the String Theory projects should be abandoned. To replace them, nature
should be described in terms of electromagnetic fields similar to the morphological fields in
Biology, as opposed to abstract mathematical models.
One of the proofs for time dilation is the effect of gravity on clocks in satellites that orbit the
earth at high speed. GR correctly states that clocks tick by more quickly in orbit than they do
at sea level because in orbit gravity is lower than at sea level. I’m saying that gravity acts as a
hindrance to the way clocks work; so, at low gravity, the hindrance is also low and at high
gravity, the hindrance is also high.
But scientists claim that TIME ticks by quickly for satellites in orbit as measured by the
clocks onboard. They even say that when time ticks by more quickly, they travel into the
future more quickly. This implies that the satellites should move into a different dimension
than objects at sea level. Yet we still see the satellites and receive data from them. This
means that we’re all in the same dimension; all that’s happening is that our clocks are running
at different rates.
This implies that time is invariant and is not a dimension i.e. the 4th dimension doesn’t exist
neither do the other 7 dimension of string theory. If the 4th dimension doesn’t exist, then
neither does spacetime. So, the foundation of GR is baseless and is hence wrong. The fact
that the equations of GR work is because they mimic the equipotentials of the gravitational
field.
###
Chapter 11: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Cosmologists tell us that the remnant energy of the Big Bang should pervade all space and
would, by now, be in the microwave range at 3K. They tried to build sensitive equipment to
detect and measure these microwaves but, before they were ready, they were “scooped” by
engineers at Bell Labs.
In 1965, Penzias and Wilson (Bell Labs engineers) were trying to eliminate noise from one of
their antennae, a horn-shaped device. First they got “rid” of the pigeons they thought were
causing the “noise” (interference). Then they cleaned out the pigeon droppings to no avail. If
anything, the noise got worse – the pigeon droppings seemed to have been filtering out some
of the noise. Then they pointed the antenna at different parts of the sky – the noise was the
same in all directions. So they sought the help from some Astrophysicists who told them that
this is the signal they were looking for. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for
Physics in 1978.
To me, any radiation from the Big Bang would’ve been travelling at the speed of light away
from the epicentre of the Big Bang i.e. in front of the more slowly moving matter. This means
that we can’t see the now microwave radiation of the Big Bang. What Penzias and Wilson
have recorded is radiation coming from distant galaxies that were radiating light that has been
Doppler-shifted into the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
As I said before, all of science is a question of definition. Define a concept and interpret data
to fit the definition. To say that radiation from the Big Bang is still available for us to detect
is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard. My conclusion is that the scientific community is
being led by pseudo-scientists masquerading as real scientists telling us lies all the way. You
can tell by the fact that their science is based on abstract mathematical models that have very
little to do with reality and yet they take the credit for the work done by experimental
scientists.
###
Chapter 12: Photon-photon Collider - May 2014
Ever since I came across Carl Anderson's experiments with gamma ray photons that split into
electron-positron pairs, I formulated a theory of how the primeval energy turned into matter.
Scientists say that they don't know how energy turned into quarks, gluons, electrons, and their
antimatter equivalents. My theory states that the primeval energy didn't turn into quarks etc; it
turned into electrons and positrons in equal numbers i.e. no matter-antimatter asymmetry.
With these electrons and positrons you can make composite matter like protons and neutrons
with positron nuclei orbited by electrons in shells. Anderson’s finding answered the question
“How did the primeval energy turn into matter?” But, if photons of energy split into electrons
and positrons, what’s stopping them from annihilating each other again? The short answer is
nothing. In fact, they do annihilate each other.
A more important question is, “If an electron annihilates a positron into 2 photons, how can
each photon split since they don’t have enough energy?” Breit and Wheeler’s theory states
that if 2 photons collide and coalesce, they could split into an electron-positron pair if they
have enough energy. That’s what happened to the energy in the early universe; and now we
have proof in the laboratory.
Scientists discover how to turn light into matter.
This article proves my theory that when photons collide they coalesce and split into electronpositron pairs. In the early universe the photons were trapped by the electron-positron plasma
forcing them to collide etc. they either turn into matter or remain as energy. The more matter
that was formed in the form of protons and neutrons, the less electrons and positrons were left
for annihilation. It wasn't a wasteful process as some scientists claim and there was no
matter-antimatter asymmetry either. This is because antimatter is invalidly defined and hence,
doesn't really exist. It's just an agreed upon definition that has paradoxes.
However, if only electrons and positrons were formed out of the primeval energy, then quarks
and gluons can’t exist i.e. the quark theory is false. So are the strong and weak nuclear forces
because they depend on the quarks and gluons being present. Furthermore, the strong and
weak nuclear forces can be regarded as manifestations of the electromagnetic force.
###
Chapter 13: Radioactivity
When I was in High School, we were taught principally 4 types of decay processes: alpha,
beta, gamma ray, and electron capture - in my day, it was known as K capture because it's
the electron in the K shell, the closest to the nucleus, that was captured. Now, I've learnt
about beta+ decay.
The reason given as to why atoms disintegrate is that they are unstable because they're at a
higher energy state. If a nucleus has too many neutrons, it decays by beta- emission i.e. it
emits a fast moving electron. This is when a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an
antineutrino. Free neutrons have been observed to decay in this way with a half-life of 10
minutes and a mean lifetime of 15 minutes. The formula given is n  p + e- + vbar (vbar is a
symbol for an antineutrino).
If the nucleus has too many protons, it decays in one of 2 ways.
1) By beta+ emission i.e. it emits a positron. This is when a proton decays into a neutron, a
positron, and a neutrino. The free proton is stable, so something else must be causing the
ejection of a positron from the nucleus/proton possibly the tremendous repulsive electrostatic
forces. The formula given is p  n + e+ + v (v is a symbol for a neutrino).
2) By electron capture. This is where an orbital electron is absorbed and changes a proton to
a neutron and emits a neutrino. The formula given is p + e-  n + v.
If the nucleus has too many neutrons and too many protons, it decays by alpha emission. The
alpha particle is a helium nuclei i.e. it has 2 protons and 2 neutrons. This reduces the atomic
number by 2 i.e. reduces the number of protons by 2; and reduces the number of neutrons by
2 thus reducing the mass number by 4.
If the nucleus is in an excited state i.e. it's in a higher energy state than at the ground state, it
decays by gamma ray emission, which is a photon of energy.
In beta- decay, the neutron emits a W- particle which then decays into an electron and an
antineutrino. The W- particle is 80 times heavier than the proton but it borrows that energy
from the quantum vacuum and pays it back on decay.
In beta+ decay, the proton emits a W+ particle which then decays into a positron and a
neutrino. The W+ particle is also 80 times heavier than the proton but it borrows that energy
from the quantum vacuum and pays it back on decay.
To understand how this happens, you must consider that the proton is made of 2 up quarks
and 1 down quark; and the neutron is made of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks. When a
neutron decays, it's that one of the down quarks changes flavour to an up quark by emitting a
W- particle so that we have 2 up quarks and 1 down quark i.e. a proton. When a proton
decays, it's that one of the up quarks changes flavour to a down quark by emitting a W+
particle so that we have 2 down quarks and 1 up quark i.e. a neutron.
Generally, nature doesn't know which atom of a radioactive isotope will disintegrate next
but, in a given time, exactly half of the atoms will disintegrate. The given time is called the
half-life of the isotope and is a characteristic of the isotope. You can use the probability
theory of QM to deduce that, over the half-life, half of the atoms will disintegrate.
I'll start with the above paragraph. Scientists are describing nature wrongly. If the isotope is
going to allow exactly halve its atoms to disintegrate in the half-life, then there's an exact
science behind it. The fact that scientists don't know what that science of disintegration is,
doesn't mean that they can blame nature for that lack of knowledge. Anyway, it's the isotope
that needs to know which atom is supposed to disintegrate next not nature.
Furthermore, what causes the atoms to disintegrate? In my theory, it's electromagnetic forces.
For example, in beta+ decay, there are too many protons. So the amount of positive charge in
the nucleus gets too much and the repulsive forces between the positrons gets too much for
them to stay together and one of them is forced out. If scientists knew the nucleonic structure
in terms of positrons and electrons, then they can work out exactly which atom will
disintegrate next because atoms disintegrate in an orderly fashion.
When there's a large number of atoms waiting to disintegrate, the electromagnetic forces are
equally large and the atoms disintegrate quickly. But, as more atoms disintegrate, fewer
atoms remain which means that the electromagnetic forces is correspondingly lower so fewer
atoms disintegrate in an exact predictable manner; predictable to nature or rather to the
isotope. Us mere mortals haven't got a clue. Actually we do. It's just that scientists tend to
accept theories that are more likely to be false than ones that are more likely to be true.
My theory doesn't use quarks. I've shown that protons and neutrons have nuclei of positrons
orbited by electrons and that a proton has 1 excess positron in its nucleus and the neutron has
equal numbers of electrons and positrons.
So, in beta- decay, all that happens is that one of the electrons in the nucleus (could be in a
neutron) is ejected from the nucleus. This is the case when the nucleus has more neutrons. A
free neutron is unstable but a free proton is stable. Since the structure of the neutron is the
same as that of the proton except for having an extra electron, it could be that extra electron
that's causing the instability.
But, when the neutron is combined in a nucleus, that extra electron freely roams in the
nuclear orbital thus causing the neutron to be more stable. In fact, without this electron, the
neutron becomes indistinguishable from a proton. Try that with quarks. However, when there
are too many neutrons, their extra electrons flood the nuclear orbital until they destabilise the
whole nucleus. Then the repulsive forces of the electrons eject one of the electrons out of the
nucleus in an attempt to regain stability.
This is done in an orderly fashion as the electromagnetic field tries to redistribute itself
evenly. Equilibrium is a common concept in nature and hence in science. Which means that
stability is a form of equilibrium which nature tries to attain by evening out the forces via the
redistribution of charges. This happens automatically by the charges being pulled (attracted)
or pushed (repelled). Forces between electric charges are electromagnetic.
When the nucleus has more protons, one of the positrons in a proton is ejected from it and out
of the nucleus probably due to the excessive repulsive forces. There's absolutely no need for a
super massive particle to be created out of thin air (quantum vacuum) and then pay it back it's easier not to borrow it in the first place.
Electron capture proves that the nucleus is a natural home for the electron. You don't have to
do any jiggery-pokery to make it fit in there. Notice that, according to the mainstream theory,
the character of the captured electron is lost whereas in my theory it's still in there among the
other electrons of the protons and neutrons. Electron capture occurs when the attractive force
due to the excessive positive charges overcomes the electron degeneracy pressure - every
force has its limits. In mainstream theory, the character of the electron is retained by claiming
that a neutrino is emitted as a result of the electron capture.
In the second decade of the 20th century, a question was asked, why don't the electrons spiral
inwards as they lost energy through radiation because when an electrical charge goes in a
circle, it radiates energy and loses angular momentum. Bohr's answer is that they occupy
certain energy levels that keep them there. I mean the positive nucleus would impart a
massive attractive force to the negative electrons.
My theory explains this perfectly: the nucleus has an outer hull of electrons, so that when an
electron gets too close, it feels the repulsive forces of these electrons. In neutron stars, this is
known as electron degeneracy pressure because the electrons in the neutron star are literally
in the nucleus thus creating electron degeneracy pressure. I will mention that when I write
about black holes and neutron stars in my forthcoming book on Relativity. I just like to say
that this degeneracy pressure prevents a black hole from becoming a singularity.
In a physics forum, a question was asked: why don't the neutrons in a neutron star decay like
they do in a laboratory apart from the degeneracy pressure? One answer said it's because of
the immense gravity of the star that keeps them trapped. Another responded to the answer:
that's what he means by degeneracy pressure. To which the original answerer replied: I just
didn't want to say that. First of all, degeneracy pressure and gravity are 2 and distinct
processes.
The first answer was correct as gravity has nothing to do with degeneracy pressure. I mention
this because some people have got the wrong idea about science and are forcing those that do
have the right idea about science to eat their words and accept falsehoods as truths. But who
do we blame for this attitude? Remember, mainstream science have experimental evidence
for something that doesn't exist.
Gamma ray decay and alpha particle decay doesn't need my theory as in the first, no nucleon
configurational changes take place; and in the second, whole nucleons are emitted and only
the configuration of the nucleus changes. This reminds me, some isotopes decay by neutron
emission - we didn't learn this at school but were taught that nuclear power stations and
nuclear fission bombs worked this way. Maybe they were trying to keep us in the dark lest we
make our own nuclear devices. Better safe than sorry.
###
Chapter 14: Pauli's Exclusion Principle
Although this is the province of Quantum Mechanics, I thought I'd show how the one force of
nature can help better explain Pauli's Exclusion Principle. I don't agree with many aspects of
QM including the wave equation. But, because Schrödinger himself said that it describes the
motion of the electron in the potential well of the proton, I assume that he's taking into
account the electromagnetic fields of both the electron and the proton.
However, results of the wave equation are presented as a set of probabilities i.e. the
probability of a finding an electron in a given position of space. These have been used to
draw the orbitals of the electrons which became known as electron clouds, which are used
extensively in chemistry.
I can work with that because all I have to do is convert the probabilities into the proportions
of the electromagnetic field that the electron clouds generate. These fields have forces which
can be used to enforce the laws of physics. In this section, it's Pauli's Exclusion Principle. It
doesn't have the word law but the word exclusion implies it as it actively prevents more than
two fermions occupying the same orbital. But how?
The 20th century was preoccupied with QM + GR and didn't do any work on the
electromagnetic field or its force. If they had, they wouldn't have come up with Quantum
Tunnelling, String Theory, Super Symmetry (SuSy) etc. Currently, Pauli's Exclusion
Principle simply states that no two fermions can have the same quantum state. This simply
tells nature what not to do. But what enforces it? My theory says that it's the electromagnetic
field of the electrons themselves. For this, you need 19th century physics.
Ampere discovered that a current flowing through 2 parallel wires would attract or repel each
other depending on the direction of the currents: if they flowed in the same direction, the
wires attracted; and if they flowed in opposite directions, they repelled each other. This is
contrary to the science maxim that opposites attract and like repels.
Thanks to Orsted, we now know that a current carrying conductor generates a magnetic field
whose polarity depends on the direction of current. That means it's the orientation of the
magnetic fields that produces the attraction and repulsion and not the electric field which
would repel irrespective of the direction of current. This also proves that the magnetic force
acts independently of the electric force and they shouldn't have been unified. Because so
much work has been done on electromagnetism, I felt that we shouldn't scrap it as it's still
useful. However, in explaining how Pauli's Exclusion Principle is enforced, I have to solely
refer to the magnetic force. The electric component doesn't help in any way that I know of
currently.
I don't know how Schrödinger's wave equation works and I don't need to because other
people have produced electron clouds and can also produce magnetic forces from the
resulting electromagnetic field. All I'm going to do is show the principle of the law is
enforced.
When an electron rotates in one direction in an orbital, it generates an electromagnetic field
with the orientation of the magnetic component in one direction. If another electron tries to
occupy the same orbital in the same direction, it will be repelled by the magnetic component
as it has the same polarity. But, if it rotates in the other direction, it will have the opposite
polarity and the two electrons can accommodate each other.
If a 3rd electron tries to occupy the same orbital in one direction, it will be repelled by the
magnetic component of one of the existing electrons; and if it tries to spin in the opposite
direction, it'll be repelled by the other existing electron so that only 2 electrons can occupy
one orbital and only if they rotate in opposite directions. Notice I say 'rotate' rather than spin
because it's the rotation around the nucleus that's doing this and what Schrödinger's wave
equation calculates. The spin implies the electron's spin about its own axis like the earth's
spin around its own axis rather than the earth's rotation around the sun which is equivalent to
the electron's rotation around the nucleus.
That's all I'm going to say about this here. More on the subject in my forthcoming book New
Quantum Mechanics - using the one force of nature. In this book I will go through all QM
concepts and explain them in terms of electromagnetism - the one force of nature. My
favourite is interference of light and electrons.
Having said that, there are 2 forces of nature (electric and magnetic) and 2 fundamental
particles (electron and positron). However, the photon has an independent existence but is
composite and not fundamental. But it's not used as a building block. Perhaps we'll find that it
acts as the glue in the proton/neutron nucleus to keep the positrons at bay because of their
positive charges. The neutrino is an anomaly in my theory but I suspect it's an epicycle used
to iron out problems with current theories.
###
Chapter 15: Homing Pigeon Navigation
You may ask: what has homing pigeon navigation has to do with science or the one force of
nature for that matter? Well, the homing pigeon, as a biological entity, is worthy of scientific
study. The way it navigates its way home has been extensively studied and they concluded
that homing pigeons the earth's magnetism. Now that makes it a worthy subject of scientific
study.
But the main reason why I got involved in this is that in a BBC TV programme about homing
pigeon navigation, they claimed that pigeons use Quantum Tunnelling to make use of earth's
magnetic field for navigation. It was very convincing to those who believe in QM but not me.
I admire Einstein for sticking to his principles and not accepting QM claiming that it was
incomplete - a diplomatic way out of the debate.
Before I can explain how homing pigeons use the one force of nature, I have to explain
bioelectricity particularly that exists in the brain. Biologists have already studied and written
about bioelectricity and how it's involved in the healing process - they introduced a term
called morphological fields which are essentially electromagnetic fields produced by the
bioelectricity.
The brain is made of billions of nerve cells connected to each in trillion of connections. A
nerve cell, called a neuron, has a body (soma) which contains a nucleus; it has short
dendrites; and a long axon sheathed in myelin. The neuron also has other organelles, such as
mitochondria, for the growth and function of the cell. It has fluids inside and outside the cell
called electrolytes because they contain ions. The chief ions are Na+ on the inside and K+ on
the outside. The membrane has gated channels and electrogenic pumps which maintain a
higher concentration of Na+ on the inside a higher concentration of K+ on the outside and this
produces a potential difference across the membrane.
When a nerve cell is stimulated, the gates of the channels open up allowing the Na+ ions to
rush out down the concentration gradient and the K+ ions to rush in again down the
concentration gradient until there's a reversal of the potential difference across the membrane.
Then the electrogenic pumps are activated and start to pump Na+ ions into the cell and K+ ions
out of the cell re-establishing the original potential difference across the membrane. This
generates an electric pulse known is a nerve impulse and that's why it's called bioelectricity.
This process is repeated up to 50 times per second. Biologists show the potential difference as
positive on the inside and negative on the outside. When it reverses, you get negative on the
inside and positive on the outside. So the nerve impulse travels down the axon as an
alternating polarity pulse. These impulses carry information from one neuron to another
across the interconnections.
Faraday has already introduced electromagnetic induction in which he induced electricity in a
wire using a magnet. I'm using this very principle to explain that the earth's magnetic field
interferes with the electricity in the nerve cells by magnetic induction. The homing pigeon
seems to have learnt how to use this information to navigate its way home.
The human brain is constructed in a similar way. The nerve impulses, because impulses are
alternating in polarity but travelling in the same direction, they produce electromagnetic
waves which scientists call brain waves. They misinterpret the information they carry
because I think they carry our thoughts as radio waves.
To understand this, consider how a transmitting aerial sends out radio waves. An alternating
electric current is passed to the aerial. The electric current is made of negatively charged
electrons that are alternating in direction. This is the reverse of neurons where the charge
carriers alternate in polarity but travel in the same direction.
Someone else's thought waves can be induced in your neurons and you could possibly
decipher them thus facilitating telepathy directly. However, our brains have been conditioned
to only accept signals that we've been taught to be facts including false science. So our brains
have been conditioned to filter out these telepathic signals.
Let's learn from the homing pigeons' ability to use the earth's magnetic field to navigate its
way home; and learn how to perceive each other's thoughts. If you believe in evolution, then
maybe this is the next step in the evolutionary ladder. When the existence of telepathy was
put to Richard Dawkins, a zoologist, he said that if this was true then the laws of physics will
have to be rewritten. I've just shown how it can be proved using the existing laws of physics
i.e. no need to rewrite them.
###
Conclusion
When I presented the above theory to a forum, I was not only compared with Bozo the clown
but also accused of 'spouting nonsense' because my claims haven't been peer reviewed. I
retorted that I didn't want my theory peer reviewed by people who spout nonsense. I was
banned from the forum. This is analogous to the Church who used to excommunicate anyone
who disagreed with them. I've always believed that the evolution of science runs along
similar lines to that of religion.
In the Christian religion, we had the Old Testament; then the New Testament; then the King
James Version. In science, we had classical mechanics; now we have modern mechanics in
the form of the Standard Model + GR; and now we are waiting for the King James Version.
Maybe it's already here - it just needs acceptance. According to my theory, there's only one
force of nature (the electromagnetic force) which was deduced by Michael Faraday but, more
importantly, was codified by JAMES Clerk Maxwell i.e. this IS the King James Version.
In the beginning an outside agency created all the energy required to build a universe from.
This existed in a small amount of space that exploded in a Big Bang whose blast gives the
universe the acceleration it now has. The photons of energy split into electron-positron pairs
from which protons and neutrons were made. The electrons and positrons annihilated each
into photons energy; but the photons collide with each other, coalesce, and split into electronpositron pairs which formed the plasma.
The protons and neutrons had nuclei of positrons orbited by electrons in shells similar to
atoms. The proton would have an excess of 1 positron in its nucleus and the neutron has equal
numbers of positrons and electrons. This is explains why the free neutron decays into a
proton, an electron, and a neutrino. The latter is an anomaly for my theory - it could be just a
photon that doesn't move at the speed of light. In my theory, photons are particles that display
wave properties. Newton's corpuscular theory and Huygens's wave theory are both true as
proved by Einstein. The particle-wave duality theory should've been replaced after DeBroglie
proved that moving particles display wave behaviour.
When protons and neutrons combine to form nuclei, they do so via their orbitals to form
nuclear orbitals like atomic orbitals combine to form molecular orbitals. This is done
electromagnetically i.e. no need for a strong or weak force. So, either the nuclear forces don't
exist or they're manifestations of the electromagnetic force. Eventually, the nuclei acquire
electrons to form neutral atoms. This ends my theory as it merges with current science from
atomic structure to macroscopic structures.
However, I foresee many people being rejected even abused when we try to publicise this
theory that runs counter to everything science has given us below the sub-atomic level. If
scientists can be so wrong about this, can we trust their theories about anything else? For
example, the Human Genome Project is said to have failed to achieve its objectives. People
who contributed financially to it have claimed they wasted their money.
I studied the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and found that it's called a retro-virus
because it doesn't have DNA of its own to replicate. So, it uses human DNA to replicate
itself. I was gobsmacked. How can Human DNA replicate HIV? I suspect that the HIV gives
the human DNA the HIV RNA which the DNA replicates. That suggests that the genetic code
is in the RNA not the DNA and may explain why the Human Genome Project failed.
It also led me to think laterally, even outside the box. Maybe if pharmaceutical companies
could invent a compound that can identify cells that don't have DNA and invent a medicine
that can kill such a cell, we will have found a remedy for HIV. The medicine can be piggybacked onto the identifying compound. Being a theoretician is great, you can come up with
seemingly impossible yet logical solutions and it's up to the experimentalists to do the hard
work i.e. it's easier said than done.
I put the above text in the book, even though it's not relevant to my theory, to prove that
scientists didn't just get particle physics wrong...
###
About the Author
I'm a retired IT professional with interest in Science. When I was at school, I always
challenged the facts I was taught e.g. I disagreed with the inverse square law in that you can't
get an infinity force. I proved that with two weak magnets by putting a south pole to another
south pole and told my colleagues that, according to the inverse square law, it's impossible to
make these poles touch. I then proceeded to make them touch thus disproving the law. From
that time on, I never believed in infinities although I keep an open mind on the universe being
infinite.
I also challenge the theories of relativity particularly the special theory because Einstein used
length contraction and time dilation to compensate for the errors introduced by holding the
speed of light constant. I also have an alternative of the Big Bang, which is what my first
book - The One Force of Nature - is about, but after the energy was created. No one can
explain the creation of the first energy without violating the conservation laws. So, Lawrence
Krauss is wrong about his "universe from nothing". They merely classify that as philosophy
so that they don't have to explain them.
###
Forthcoming Books by the Same Author:
How the Universe Began
New Quantum Mechanics
Relativity - is it really needed?
The Law Enforcement Agency of the Laws of Physics
Please keep in touch
###