The Universe Explained -- The Deductive Theory of the Universe

The Universe Explained The Deductive Theory of the Universe By Ιγκόρ Μαρμαλίδης March, 2020 © 2020 Ιγκόρ Μαρμαλίδης. All Rights Reserved. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11986971 Foreword This essay is an attempt to present a theory of the structure and the mechanics of the Universe, in which a number of phenomena in physics may find a common basis and a uniform consistent explanation and which may help in understanding the origin of the material part of the Universe. Together with the reader we shall look into some of the unresolved secrets of the Universe and make a humble attempt to shed a little more light on them, or maybe do so from a slightly different angle, and perhaps advance our knowledge about Nature a step further. This essay is not meant as a formal scientific paper full of complicated terminology, mathematical formulae, break-through experimental test results, etc. Instead, we shall take a different approach: we shall confine ourselves to already known or scientifically proven facts and theories, walk and think through them again and — resorting only to intuition, analysis, logic and common sense — we shall see if such a fresh look, or a look from a another angle, may lead us to any new observations, ideas and conclusions. We may at times divert from certain well-established views and possibly break a few rules in the process but in the end it may all reconcile and turn out to be justified. So, this is meant to be an easy-to-read essay that any person, even without a PhD in Physics, could understand and perhaps enjoy. For this reason inevitably one will find here certain generalisations, simplifications and (reasonable) admissions. These are intentional and are here in order to keep it simple and limited only to a general concept, leaving fine details and precise calculations aside. 1 Let us imagine that we’re trying to read the story of our Universe and what we have is a book, where the text is written partly in black ink and partly in a transparent invisible ink, or we’re looking at a picture where certain parts are hidden from us. Can we in our minds reconstruct the full picture? Well, we can certainly try and in doing so we shall need to analyse what we have, guess what is missing, make reasonable assumptions about the missing parts and see if we can validate such assumptions by other facts know to us. So, let us begin. 2 Part I. The Universe 1. Elementary Particles So, we start with what we already know. We believe the Universe around us is made of matter. Matter is made of tiny atoms. Atoms, in turn, are made by various combinations of certain even tinier particles, called elementary or fundamental particles. These elementary particles include, photons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc., and are believed to be indivisible and indestructible, i.e. not being composed of any smaller parts. They may also be generally referred to as quantum particles, from the Latin word «quantum», as a unit or the minimum quantity of something, in the sense that it just doesn’t get any smaller than that. Ultimately, these elementary particles are the building blocks of all matter in the Universe and the Universe itself. We know that the material world around us is defined in the dimensions in space and time. Material objects shape what we call space, taking certain position relative to one another, moving and interacting with one another, transforming and changing over time. A chain of sequential transformations of matter in space is what we call the flow of time. According to the Einstein’s theory of relativity, space and time form a single space-time continuum, where these dimensions of the material world are elastically interlinked and inseparable from one another. We perceive the material world in the paradigm of this spacetime continuum; we think and describe all events using their three-dimensional coordinates in space and their «time coordinate». We can always say where (in space) and when (in time) a particular physical object is (or was) or a particular event occurs (or occurred). Applying the laws of physics we can even predict with certainty future events or a future position of a physical object in space, in other words, we can tell how its coordinates in space and time will change. For example, if we drop a metal ball from a 30-feet hight we can calculate in advance where and when it will fall or calculate its future position, or its coordinates, both in space and in time. Our mind is accustomed, or pre-programmed, to think and perceive the world in terms of these «where-and-when» dimensions and it is an important feature that we shall need to keep in mind as we move on. 3 2. Motion of Elementary Particles The Einstein’s theory of relativity postulates that no material physical object can move at a speed exceeding the speed of light. This is because as its speed increases the (relative) mass of such an object also increases. As a material physical object approaches the speed of light the object’s mass approaches infinity and at that point it would require an infinite amount of energy to speed it up any further, or to push it over the speed of light. And this is regarded to be impossible. So, the speed of light is believed to be the ultimate, terminal speed in the Universe. But why would Nature, that otherwise seems undeterred by any limits in what she does, impose such a speed limit on herself ? The theory of relativity describes movement of material physical objects in space and, thus, we shall dare to restate this principal slightly differently for our purposes (but with no intention to dispute or alter it): no material object with mass can exceed the speed of light as it moves in space. Now, we know that some of the elementary particles are believed by scientists to have no mass, for example, photons, the quantum particles of light. Then the question is: can an elementary particle, such as a photon, move at a speed exceeding the speed of light? As long as it has no mass, a photon’s motion at a speed higher than the speed of light would not contradict the theory of relativity or any other known laws of physics. So, at least in theory, this is possible. Let us then take this one step further and make our first assumption that not only in theory but in practice, as well, photons can, and actually do, accelerate to speeds exceeding the speed of light. What would it mean and what would happen when they do? The theory of relativity tells us that when a material physical object accelerates in its motion its relative mass increases and its relative (apparent) size decreases, in other words, as it accelerates the object gets 4 «heavier» and it «shrinks». Relatively, of course. Relative to, or from the standpoint of, a stationary observer. So, for a stationary observer an accelerating object will appear to be gaining in mass and contracting in size. 1 (We can ignore the effect on mass for now since we’re talking about a massless photon). So, imagine that we could actually watch a photon that is moving before our eyes with an accelerating speed. If we no longer limit ourselves by the speed of light then, following this logic, at some point the photon will get infinitely small in size as it accelerates. We are most likely to see it moving ever faster and at the same time getting ever smaller in size to a point when it will simply «disappear» from our view. We shall no longer be able to see it because it will get too fast or too small, infinitely small, for us to see it. The laws of conservation in physics hold that nothing disappears into nowhere or arises out of nothing. Things may transform into other things (or energy) but nothing is ever lost in the process. So, the photon cannot simply disappear into nowhere. At the same time, we believe a photon to be a quantum particle, an absolute minimum unit that cannot be decomposed, disintegrated or destroyed. Therefore, even when a photon exceeds the speed of light it cannot transform into anything else and it should continue to exist in the same shape and form, as a photon, regardless of whether or not we can see it. The photon’s «disappearance» may simply mean that our sensory abilities, our eyesight in this case, do have their own limits and they are not designed to detect (or see) objects moving at speeds faster than the speed of light. The photon’s «disappearance» may be nothing more than our perception of the event, an optical effect, owing to the natural limits of our sensory organs. In reality, the photon may be speeding on, now being invisible to us for being too fast or too small for us to detect it. Really, what do we mean when we say that something has «disappeared»? We mean that from the standpoint of our customary perception of the world — in the “where-andwhen” dimensions — we can no longer tell the object’s coordinates, or exact location, in space at a given time. As if it doesn’t exist in, or has «dropped out» from, our space. 1 This, of course, implies very significant speeds, approaching the speed of light, where these effects become observable. 5 So, this will be our second assumption: when a photon accelerates to a speed exceeding the speed of light it becomes invisible to us; it continues to exist in a state that we cannot detect or describe in the customary space-and-time dimensions that we normally use to describe material physical objects. In other words, we can no longer define its position and movement using our customary four-dimensional method of «where-and-when», as if it exists in another dimension unknown or simply inaccessible to our direct observation. Now, it would be reasonable to assume that if a photon can accelerate in its motion, it can decelerate, too. In this case, if at some point the photon decelerates to a speed below the speed of light, it will again become detectable and visible to us, or «return» to our customary three-dimensional space. Quantum physics describe to us a puzzling behaviour of elementary particles that seem to move in a sporadic and chaotic ways, disappearing and reappearing here and there in space. This may be quite in line with our proposed photon’s speed experiment, where the photon would become visible or invisible to us as the speed of its motion changes. So, maybe we’re on the right path. What if, in fact, this is exactly what a photon does as it moves, i.e. it accelerates at some intervals and decelerates at others, so its motion is a sequence of accelerations and decelerations? Given Nature’s affection for harmony, let’s suppose such accelerations and decelerations are indeed sequential and equal, like swings of a pendulum. Graphically such a motion will look like a sine wave around the axis representing the speed of light. The amplitude of the photon’s swings, or fluctuations round this axis, may vary but they always remain of equal proportions. Or, to put it simpler, a photon moves like a wave. (We shall later discuss what may cause these swings in the motion of elementary particles and why these swings may, in fact, vary in magnitude). 6 Let’s imagine for a moment that we could actually follow a photon all the way in its motion. To visualise our idea, we can draw the following picture of a photon moving in space. When the photon swings to the left-hand section of the picture it is visible to us and when it swings to the right-hand section it becomes invisible, being either too fast or too small for us to see it. The imaginary partition runs along the line representing the speed of light axis, as if dividing space into a visible and an invisible sections for us. The difference between these two sections is only the photon’s velocity. While such a view suggesting an invisible part of space may sound somewhat odd, let’s not brush it off just yet. The fact that we don’t see something doesn’t really mean or matter that much. After all, not so long ago we could similarly question the existence of atoms, electro-magnetic fields or radio waves simply because we could not not see them. It sufficed to change to more advanced methods of observation and research and their existence quickly became generally accepted. Let us to see if we can find anything in the «real world» that could help us validate the assumptions we’ve made so far. Any known facts that may support these ideas? But, first, let’s add another detail to the picture, a wave. Elementary particles may create electro-magnetic and other waves as they move through space, just like a boat moving on the surface of water creates a wave, a disturbances on the surface, that spreads in all directions. Once created, a wave has a life of its own: it exists and spreads independently from the object that caused it. Even if we remove the boat from the water, the wave it has created will 7 continue to ripple on the surface. So do the waves created in space by moving elementary particles. Even if we could «remove» a particle from space (or make it «disappear»), its wave will keep on spreading independently from it. So we added one, a continuously spreading wave created by our photon. Now, let’s go back to our picture and turn the imaginary partition on it to us and look at the twodimensional picture of it. What do we see? A constant wave and marks of a «leapfrogging» particle. This will be exactly the picture that the quantum theory gives us when describing the motion of an elementary particle, which has characteristics, or appear to behave both as a constant wave and a particle that «jumps» from one position in space to another, as opposed to moving in a straight line like all other «normal» material objects would. In our earlier picture of a divided space this will look as if the photon disappears and reappears, «drops in» and «drops out» from our visible space, or simply becomes invisible to us at times. This view may also help explain the phenomenon known as diffraction of light, where a beam of light seems to be bending, or waving, around the edges of a solid object or an obstacle on its way leaving a blurry shadow behind, as opposed to a direct geometrical projection of a solid edge. A beam of light consists of billions of individual photons. In our logic, each photon within this beam of light is moving as a tiny wave; these individual tiny waves overlap, synchronise and magnify each other, quite similar to how waves form and grow on the surface of the oceans. 8 The beam of light, as a whole, then naturally attains the characteristics of an aggregate larger wave, attributable to the waves induced within it its body by the wave-like motion of individual photons. When the beam of light runs into an obstacle on its way some of the photons will hit its surface directly while others would wave around it carried by the waves formed within the light beam and disperse, depending on the phase in which each such internal wave approaches the obstacle. That would explain it, wouldn’t it? So, the assumptions we have made so far seem to find a confirmation in observable events and facts known to us. At the same time, our ideas as to the motion of photons do not contradict any known laws of physics. On the one hand, they are consistent with the theory of relativity (at least for massless particles, such as photons). On the other hand, they fit the description offered by quantum physics for the behaviour of elementary particles; that’s the footprint this kind of motion of elementary particles would leave in «our», visible section of space. Then maybe instead of saying: «[we have seen] nothing [that] can move faster than the speed of light» we should rather say: «we cannot see anything that moves faster than the speed of light»? Is it possible then that the speed of light is not about a limit on speed in the Universe but rather it is about a limit on our sensory capabilities? Maybe we simply cannot see «beyond the speed of light» and when an object accelerates above that speed we can no longer perceive it as a physical object? Now, if one photon can do it, then they all can do it. This would mean that at any given time there will be a number of photons in the visible section of space and some — in the invisible section, which is hidden from us by the «veil of light». (Again, the difference between the two sections is only the velocity of elementary particles, under or above the speed of light). 9 This leads us to believe that the Universe may have a more complex structure than what we can directly observe. It may have two components, or two «sections» in our picture, one is visible to us and the other one is invisible. The imaginary partition between the two runs long the speed of light. So, opposite to our common belief that light is «shedding light» on things, it may actually be hiding some things from us, as if creating a veil of light before our eyes, a screen beyond which we cannot see. In a somewhat simplistic analogy we can think of a pair of spoked wheels placed one after another. If we spin the first wheel in the front very fast, we shall no longer be able to see its spokes as they will be moving too fast for our eyes to catch them. We shall be looking through the «invisible» spokes of the first, fast-spinning wheel and seeing only the spokes of the second, still or slower moving wheel. So, it looks very much like the Universe, or Nature, may be running two shows at once, a slow-speed show visible to us and a high-speed one that goes completely unnoticed by us. 10 3. What is the Speed of Light? Before we move on, there’s another important observation we need to make. Imagine a car that left Town A and arrived in Town B in one hour. The distance between the two towns is 60 miles. Can we tell at what speed the car was going? If we were not in the car we would say that the speed was exactly 60 miles per hour or, to be precise, that is what the average speed must have been, right? The car could have accelerated and decelerated along the way or it could have even stopped at a gas station. Without being in the car, we have no idea what the actual, true speed was. So, we can only calculate the average speed. The same goes for measuring the speed of photons, or light that they carry through space. If they move as we describe it here, we cannot reliably measure the actual, true speed of photons in their accelerating and decelerating motion. However, if the photon’s swings are indeed sequential and equal, oscillating around the axis with the value equal to the speed of light, then the average speed of the photons will always equal the speed of light.2 And, according to the theory of relativity, this is exactly the result we always get wherever and whenever we measure the speed of a light beam. That is because, just like in the example with the car above, all we do is we take the distance travelled by light from point A to point B and divide it by the time lapsed. So, does the theory of relativity determines and operates only with the average speed of the photons, but not their actual speed? If so, then the speed of light accepted as a universal constant in the theory of relativity is not the actual terminal speed in the Universe; it is a universal constant that tells us the average speed of photons (or the motion velocity of elementary particles, more generally), while their actual, true speeds may deviate from this average in both directions apparently unlimited by anything. So, Nature may not have burdened herself with any speed limits. And if we are right about the proposed motion of photons and this «secret» of speed in the Universe, then many of its other secrets will start falling one by one, like dominos. But, first, there’s another hurdle we need to deal with. 2 No matter how far the pendulum swings in either direction its middle position always stays the same. 11 4. Matter Particles Do all elementary particles behave in the same way as photons? Do they all move in a wave-like pattern, occasionally accelerating and decelerating «around» the speed of light? Let’s now turns to matter particles, elementary particles that combine to form ordinary matter, such as electrons and quarks (that make up protons and neutrons). Here, things get more complicated. There are important differences between a photon and, for example, an electron. Unlike a photon, an electron has a (negative) electric charge and it has mass, albeit a very small one by our standards. Yet, mass is mass. The theory of relativity will apply dictating that an electron will not be able to exceed the speed of light owing to its mass. But, on the other hand, quantum physics again presents to us a similar picture, or a footprint, that an electron leaves in «our», visible space: a constant wave and marks of a particle that «jumps» from one position in space to another. To us this would imply that an electron does accelerate to a speed exceeding the speed of light in its motion, at times becoming invisible to us, as if «dropping out» from the visible section of space in our previous picture. Then the two existing theories do not reconcile. One theory suggests that an electron is doing something that the other theory wouldn’t allow it to do. How do we solve this? Let’s take another look. On the one hand, we see that in the visible section of space an electron behaves as a normal particle, or a physical object with mass; on the other hand, we see that — after it crosses the speed-of-light «barrier» — in the invisible section of space it begins to behave as if it were a particle, or an object without mass. How can that be possible? Could it be that something happens around the speed-of-light «barrier» that causes electron to lose mass? What is mass, anyway? Is it something that a particle can gain and lose? In physics mass is described as a property, a characteristic, of physical matter, without explaining exactly where this property comes from, what defines it or what gives material objects their mass. A renown British physicist Peter Higgs suggested that mass may be attributable to a special mass 12 particle, called the mass boson or the Higgs boson. This mass particle somehow comes into interaction with other particles (initially massless) and this interaction gives rise to the characteristic that we call mass. In 2012 the existence of the mass particle, or the Higgs boson, seems to have been confirmed in experiments at the CERN Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland (the «LHC»), where scientists reportedly managed to briefly detect it when they made particles collide at speeds close to the speed of light. Let’s suppose this is more or less how it works. In a little simplistic way, let’s say that a mass particle attaches like a magnet to another particle, an electron, attracted, say, by the electron’s electric charge. (And it wouldn’t attach to a photon because a photon is neutral, i.e. it carries no electric charge). This «magnetic» attraction force between them is strong enough to hold the two together at speeds below the speed of light. But as they reach the speed of light, kinetic (own) energy of the particles becomes so high that it outweighs the particles' binding force and breaks this «magnetic» linkage, disconnecting the mass particle from the electron. 3 (As if at the speed of light the mass particle gets «blown off» from the surface of the electron and decouples from it). Well, speed matters. We know that certain physical phenomena are driven solely by speed. For example, when a supersonic aircraft passes the speed of sound this creates an effect of the sound «detaching» or decoupling from the aircraft. The sound wave can no longer catch up with the speed of the aircraft and it lags behind. We see a silently moving aircraft and a «detached» sound, as if it exists separately from the aircraft. We do not define this phenomenon in terms of the «where-and-when» dimensions. It is not linked to any particular «coordinates» in space and time. It can happen anywhere in the atmosphere and at any time of the day as long as the necessary speed is reached. We define this phenomenon in terms of velocity. So, may be the speed of light, or the light barrier, is a defining threshold for certain phenomena in the Universe, just as the the sound barrier is for others? Sounds like a fantasy but out of curiosity let’s follow this through and see where it gets us. 3 This is what may have happened in the LHC experiments, where mass particles decoupled from their carrierparticles in high speed (high energy) collisions. 13 So, we make a new assumption: a mass particle can detach or decouple from an electron (or other matter particles) as they reach the speed of light and the two then continue their existence separately and independently from one another. (Here, instead of actually «moving» in a particular direction, a particle may oscillate in a «fixed» position in space, in which case it will be switching between the visible and the invisible states at the speed of light. Since this will be at the limit of our perception, we may view this as if the particle takes many possible positions or states simultaneously, similarly to a coin flipping in the air that appears to show all its sides at once and none in particular. An electron «flipping» or «vibrating» in this way around a certain point in space would also create for us a fussy picture of its position in space, which will be quite consistent with the description of atomic structures, where electrons form more of a hazy cloud around protons rather than follow fixed or well-defined linear orbits). Now, in the right-hand, the invisible, section of our picture we shall have a whole new mix, or a cocktail of particles, including photons, now massless («light») electrons and the socalled mass particles. They all move in rather chaotic ways at enormous speeds or, in other words, possess enormous kinetic energy, so high that it prevents any lasting interaction or a stable connection between them at the inter-particle level; as if the just «don’t notice» each other, being unable to interact as they otherwise would at slower speeds (energies). They still 14 influence and affect each other’s motion but they do so at a level inaccessible to our direct observation (e.g, they can probably collide and repel each other, exchange energy, etc.) without establishing any lasting firm connections between them. As an analogy, we can think of two magnetic metal balls on a table. If we slowly roll one near the other they will stick together attracted by their magnetic forces. However, if we roll them very fast or make them collide at a very high speed, they will pass each other or bounce off each other; their kinetic (own) energy will be higher than the energy of their binding magnetic forces and they will not mange to establish a lasting firm connection. So, in this high-velocity (high-energy) state particles become inaccessible to any lasting interactions or contact with them or they become virtually undetectable (or «non-intractable») for other particles. For us this would mean that particles in this state essentially become intangible. We wouldn’t be able to see, touch or otherwise contact with them or even know of their presence in any usual or perceivable way. And we assume that this mix of particles in the right-hand section of our picture, among other things, contains what we may call an ingredient or a component of mass, which is now not being linked or attributable to any specific particles or physical objects. Let’s call it dispersed mass, as a reference to a disintegrated and dispersed state of matter particles. Would we be able to validate these ideas somehow? Can we find anything in the «real world» to indicate that we may be on the right path in our search? Let’s ask ourselves what marks or footprints this imaginary right-hand section in our picture would leave in «our» visible world? Not much to look for, frankly speaking. By our own design this imaginary right-hand section of our picture is completely intangible; it is not supposed to be something that we can see, feel or touch. Then what’s left for us to test its existence? Well, there’s one idea. We believe that it contains mass in one form or another, dispersed mass. Mass, as we know, creates gravitation. So, maybe we should look for observable gravitational effects of it? Do we ever come across any gravitation that appears to come out of nothing or nowhere, i.e. that is not attributable to any specific material physical objects? Not in our everyday lives. But… 15 When astronomers watched remote galaxies in space, they encountered something strange. Galaxies rotate around their centres, usually blackholes, much like the planets rotate around the Sun in our solar system. The stability of such a rotating system as a whole is explained by the laws of the Newton’s mechanics: the centrifugal forces created in the rotation are being offset by equal gravitational forces of all material physical bodies in the system. Astronomers ran their calculations on galaxies and realised that something was very wrong: given the speed of their rotation, the total mass of visible matter in these galaxies was so obviously insufficient to create the necessary gravitational pull that these galaxies should just fly apart. Yet they don’t. Something — an inexplicable additional gravitational force — was holding them together. They kept on searching for what may account for this additional missing gravitation but they found nothing. It was as if this additional gravitation was literally coming out of nowhere. As you may have guessed it, this when the term dark matter came about, as a reference to something invisible and intangible that exists in the Universe and that only makes its presence known through the enormous gravitation it creates, so powerful it holds entire galaxies together. So, is our cocktail of particles in the right-hand section of the picture is the recipe for dark matter? Have we just modelled dark matter in our experiments? Let’s take a closer look. We believe that the principles of the Einstein’s theory of relativity should apply across both sections of our picture, except that we no longer limit ourselves by the speed of light. So, instead of E=mc2 it will now be E=mv(a)2, where v(a) is the actual speed of the particles, which we believe can be higher than the speed of light. Under the theory of relativity this will lead us to the conclusion that the mix of particles moving in the right-hand section of our picture will have a much larger relative mass and, therefore, generate a much stronger relative gravitation compared to the particles moving in the lefthand section at much lower speeds. So, for an observer located in the left-hand section of our picture the right-hand section of it would look and feel much more massive and create a much stronger gravitation that its own, slower-moving left-hand section. 16 Interestingly, according to the current estimates by scientists, the ratio of visible ordinary matter to the so-called invisible dark matter in the Universe is about 1:4. In other words, we now believe (or, perhaps, simply perceive from where we are) that the total mass of all ordinary matter is relatively small, accounting for only about 20% of all matter in the Universe, with the remaining 80% taken up by a much more massive dark matter. And that would be quite in line with where we’re getting at in our analysis here. (Besides, particles moving at the right-hand section of the picture will possess enormous energy, far exceeding the classical mc2. Is this the mysterious dark energy in the Universe?) So, we can redraw our picture accordingly, with a much more massive right-hand (the invisible) section: Then, as we discussed, the light barrier (just like the sound barrier) has no particular physical location, or coordinates in the space-time dimensions. It is defined solely by velocity of motion of elementary particles that can break this light barrier at any point in space and at any time. (This process of particles transition between the two «worlds» is probably occurring all the time and in every point in space). Thus, we should then just overlap the two section in our picture that we’ve earlier divided by the imaginary partition (the veil of light) only to make it easier for the reader to follow our line of thinking. But the real picture of our Universe should be as follows, where the two sections of space overlap and co-exist one within the other: 17 So, our theory brings us to the conclusion that the world around us is a two-fold reality. The Universe has two components to it, or rather matter comprising the Universe may exist in two different states or modes: one is a low-velocity (low-energy) state, where its constituent particles move at or below the speed of light; and the other one is a high-velocity (high-energy) state, where its constituent particles move at speeds exceeding the speed of light. But what’s important is that essentially it is one and the same matter or substance capable of changing, or transitioning between, the two states depending on the velocity (or energy) of the particles comprising it. (As a side note, there appears to be no need to search any further for the mysterious dark matter. We now have reasons to believe that it is made of the same elementary particles moving at extreme speeds, so high that it prevents any («usual») interaction or contact with them and, consequently, their detection by our customary means of observation. In order to see and feel them all we need to do is to slow them down. But even if we do, we are unlikely to find anything new. It will be same particles of the same matter we see around us everyday. Besides, this particle acceleration and deceleration process occurs naturally everywhere and all the time in any event). Well, in addition to solving the secret of speed, we may have solved the secret of mass in the Universe (and accidentally discovered dark matter in the process). Then it just snowballs from here. More and more of what’s written in the invisible ink in our story transpires and the pieces of the puzzle fall in their places revealing a bigger picture. 18 5. Dispersed Mass So, we believe that dispersed mass — a disintegrated and dispersed state of highly energised matter particles — is what leads to the phenomenon known as dark matter. In fact, it’s not dark; it’s simply invisible, intangible and imperceptible to us because in this state particles move too fast (possess too high energy) to be able to (physically) interact or connect with other matter particles, including those that are in the state of visible ordinary matter, like ourselves and our material detection tools and other scientific instruments. Fortunately, one thing that it cannot hide from us is its immense gravitation. Mass even in its dispersed form continues to carry its inherent property of gravity, a term that comes from the Latin word gravitas, meaning «weight» or «heaviness». (We shall use gravity in this sense, as «weight» or «heaviness», rather than as a force of attraction between two physical bodies). The presence of dispersed mass in space creates what we may call dispersed gravity or a dispersed gravity field, a force field that does not have any particular vector but rather, on the aggregate, creates an even internal «pressure» within a particular area in space, as if weighting on, or pressing, everything in this area from all directions at once. (We cannot see or otherwise directly perceive matter particles in this high-velocity (highenergy) dispersed state — or we can no longer perceive them as physical objects — but we can detect the presence of energy or certain «invisible forces» capable of transmitting energy from one point in space to another. So, according to our perception, we describe this type of interactions as an intangible force field rather than a physical substance. Although, we believe that ultimately matter particles in their dispersed state are behind this force field and are the carriers of it). Dispersed mass and the resulting dispersed gravity fields may be spread out unevenly throughout space. In areas where massive physical objects are present (such as stars or planets) there’s a larger concentration of matter compared to interstellar space. In other words, there’s a greater concentration of matter particles per unit of space in those areas that can transition between low- and high-velocity states. So, in the areas where we observe massive physical objects of visible matter, the concentration, or density, of the invisible matter should also be higher. (This is so simply because a greater number of matter particles per 19 unit on space in these areas means there’s more «fuel» for the process of the particles’ transition between the two states)4. Dispersed mass and the resulting dispersed gravity fields interact and affect other (visible) objects in the Universe that come into contact with them. We shall now look at, or try to model, some of these interactions, as well as their resulting effects and consequences, many of which are well known but sometimes lack satisfactory (or any) explanation. Energy of Vacuum First, this may help explain why vacuum has a non-zero energy and why its energy fluctuates. Vacuum, as we defined it, is an area in space, where no material, or visible matter, is present. However, the presence of dispersed mass, even in minimal quantities, would create dispersed gravity fields throughout space, of whatever strength they may be.5 These invisible gravity fields carry and transmit energy even in the so-called vacuum. Even if we assume that such dispersed gravity fields are absolutely static, any system of their observation in the Universe will not be. If we take and hold in our hands a magic glass box contacting a perfect vacuum it will still demonstrate certain energy and the energy level inside this magic glass box will fluctuate. This is because the magic glass box with vacuum inside will be constantly moving across the lines of force of dispersed gravity fields (and, possibly, various other electromagnetic fields) present throughout the Universe. As we hold this magic glass box in our hands standing on Earth, our planet moves around the Sun, the Solar system moves around the centre of our galaxy and our galaxy moves through the Universe. We, as observers, will always be in motion, constantly moving through space in the Universe and crossing the lines of dispersed gravity fields. This is what causes fluctuations in the energy levels inside the magic glass box of vacuum. 4Thus, an observation that galaxies tend to form in, or get gravitationally attracted to, areas of large concentration of dark matter may be somewhat erroneous. Ordinary matter and dark matter are two sides of the same coin; they can only «concentrate» together. 5 This is in addition to electromagnetic fields generated by the fast-moving electrically-charged particles, such as electrons and quarks. 20 The Cause of Relativity Second, while we shall touch upon gravitation later on, for now we should at least say that «gravitational forces» around a material physical object may be broken down into two components or two «types» of gravitation. One is the classical proper gravitation of a visible material physical object with its vector oriented towards the centre of such an object. This is the one that Newton described when he explained why an apple always falls to the ground. (We shall look into this in more detail later). The other one is the dispersed gravity created by the presence of dispersed mass of invisible (high-energy) matter particles in that area. As we said, this one does not have any particular vector, rather it creates an even internal «pressure» in the area, pressing from all directions at once, compressing or squeezing everything equally in this ares. The resulting effects, or the consequences, of this dispersed gravity is what Einstein described in his general relativity theory as distortions or curvatures in space-time. Space — as defined by physical objects, their mutual positions and distances between them — appears compressed or squeezed near massive physical objects, where the concentration of dispersed mass is naturally higher leading to a higher «pressure» of its dispersed gravity. The cause and the mechanism behind these apparent distortions in space-time is uneven concentration of matter (in both of its states) throughout space and varying strengths of the resulting dispersed gravity fields that put uneven «pressure» on physical objects in different areas of space. The closer one gets to an area with a higher concentration of matter (which always co-exists in both of its states), the more «pressure» one feels from an increasingly strong dispersed gravity field. Similar to a diver, who feels a stronger pressure from all 21 direction as he goes deeper in the water, the closer one gets to a massive physical object, the stronger dispersed gravity field forces apply from all directions. 6 The perceivable effects of this are as described in the theory of relativity: in areas of high concentration of matter — typically, near massive physical objects, such as stars and planets — all physical bodies contract in size and all physical processes slow, i.e. the flow of time slows. We can even graphically show how dispersed gravity works: We have a hundred-meter long spaceship heading from the outer space toward a massive planet on the right. As the spaceship approaches the planet it enters an area of a higher concentration of matter, which is present there in both ordinary and dispersed states. A higher density of dispersed mass present in the high-velocity state of matter creates a stronger dispersed gravity field. A stronger dispersed gravity field near the planet will start to press on, or «squeeze» all physical objects entering this area, including the spaceship and the crew. But since this stronger gravity field «squeezes» everything gradually and equally (at the atomic level), the crew will not notice any changes. From their perspective, the spaceship will be exactly the same as before, still hundred-meter long. 6 This may also a reasons why in the conditions of weightlessness spilled water takes shape of a sphere, being pressed equally from all directions. 22 But an outside observer, who could simultaneously watch both areas, would notice the difference that the relativity theory describes as a distortion of space or length contraction. Such an outside observer would see that the hundred-meter long spaceship appeared longer, or stretched, in the outer space relative to what it now appears closer to the planet, where it appears shorter or «squeezed». This visual effect occurs owing to the varying strengths of the dispersed gravity fields, or varying «pressure» of dispersed mass in these areas. Now, let’s look at how these dispersed gravity fields affect the motion of photons (or light that they carry) and why exactly the flow of time will slows, as the spaceship nears the planet. We added the gravity field force lines in the lower part of the picture. These force lines become denser as the gravity field gets stronger as we move from left to right on the picture. Energy transmitted along these force field lines is what causes photons to swing in their motion. The more intense, the stronger the dispersed gravity field becomes, the more energy it conveys to photons, intensifying their swings. These swings, as we suppose, oscillate perfectly around the middle line, the speed of light axis on our picture. Thus, the average speed of the photons will always stay the same, being equal to what we call the speed of light in a given medium. So, we know that each photon will always move with the same average speed across our picture. Now, look at the picture again and follow the path of the photon (the wave line at the bottom) with your eyes or a pencil from left to right always keeping the same speed and, each time the photon crosses the line in the middle, say «tick» and then «tack», and so on. (The black dots on the middle line represent «seconds» of time). You can see and hear how the time slows. The «seconds» go from «tick - tack - tick -tack» to «tick - - - tack - - - tick - - - - tack». (Follow the photon back from right to left and you will see time run faster). This is how it works and this is why — as the general relativity theory tells us —time flows slower on Earth than in the outer, «empty» space. And the more massive a physical object is, the slower time will flow in the area around it. Let’s go back to our spaceship for a second. Near the planet the hundred-meter spaceship appears relatively shorter than it was in the outer space. Say, the crew began to suspect something and they decided to measure the spaceship near the planet. They want to measure it as precisely as possible — with a ray of light, which they know always moves with 23 the universal constant speed of light. The crew know that a ray of light runs from one end of the spaceship to the other in exactly three seconds.7 (At least, so it was where they travelled from). So, they run a ray of light along the spaceship and count the seconds. Much to their relief, it takes the ray of light exactly three seconds to go from one end of the spaceship to the other. With the peace of mind regained, the crew are now confident that nothing has changed in the world. But the seconds they counted near the planet are different from the seconds in the outer space. Near the planet they counted longer or «stretched» seconds. (We tested that in our previous picture). The change in density of the dispersed gravity field near the planet created a so-called space-time distortion, which had the effect of «compressing» space (i.e. contracting lengths) and at the same time «stretching» or slowing the flow of time. So, the crew could not have noticed any difference being tricked by a simultaneous compression of space and a corresponding slowdown in the flow of time near the planet. This is the elastic interlink between space and time at work: you squeeze it in one direction (or dimension) it expands in the other. From the standpoint of our theory, all they have really accomplished was to measure the average speed of photons in two different settings, resulting — predictably — in the same value, the speed of light, as the constant average speed of photons, irrespective of how intense their actual fluctuations around this value are. We should note again that, of course, there’s no hard border between the areas of different concentration of dispersed mass. As our space travellers approach the planet from outer space, the concentration of dispersed mass and the resulting «pressure» will begin to build up slowly and gradually. As it gradually builds up, the spaceship will gradually begin to shrink, first at the front, then in the middle and then at the back. If the spaceship was long enough, we could see that formerly straight lines of its contour would start to contract and curve toward the planet. Since all physical objects in this area would begin to contract and curve in exactly the same manner, space in this area — formed and defined by these objects — would itself appear to curve. 7 Let’s make it three seconds for the sake of example. 24 Finally, this may also explain why in the theory of relativity velocity of an observer makes a difference and why acceleration is equivalent in its effects to gravitation. An object moving at a fast (or accelerating) speed will be crossing the dispersed gravity field force lines (ever) more frequently compared to a stationary or a slower moving object. In other words, a fast moving object will cross more such force field lines in each unit of time and, thus, it will experience the same effects as if it would stay in a denser (stationary) dispersed gravity field, the space will contract and the flow of time will slow for it. Motion of Light As noted earlier, dispersed gravity fields present in space is what causes photons (and other elementary particles) to deviate from a straight-line motion, sending them instead on wave-like gyrations as they move through the lines of force of these dispersed gravity fields. The denser the force lines are, the more energy the field conveys to photons, the wider their swings become. To illustrate this, let’s look at the following picture: A weaker dispersed gravity field on top of the picture creates relatively small swings in a photon’s motion. A stronger dispersed gravity field of a more massive object at the bottom creates larger swings in a photon's motion, as if sending it on a «longer path» to an observer. If we «unroll» and flatten out the photons’ paths, we will get the «true distance» a photon has to go on its way to the observer. So, the strength of a dispersed gravity field may work as an equivalent of the apparent distance to an object as measured by the passage of light. The 25 more massive the physical object is, the stronger its dispersed gravity field, the longer the photons’ route becomes. (Notably, exactly the same effect will occur if we convey additional energy to photons in another way, e.g. by pushing forward the source of light. This, too, will increase photons’ fluctuation 8 and «extend» their route to the destination point. So, the presence of mass indeed equates energy in its relativistic effects). Does this mean that an increase in mass of a physical object and a corresponding increase in dispersed gravity near it may be perceived by us as an increase in distance to that object, at least as measured by the passage of light? Mass in its dispersed state creates a lensing effect in our perception of objects in the Universe; the larger or the more concentrated the mass, the more distant the object may appear to us? A very large concentration of mass in a particular area of space may take this lensing effect to the extreme, essentially creating an optical effect of an infinite distance or «removing» the object’s image so infinitely far away from us that we may perceive that area as a «hole» in the visible space, a blackhole. Further, as noted earlier, in the theory of relativity gravitation and acceleration are equivalent and have the same relativistic effects. Then, by extension, an increase in mass, which increases gravitation, should also be equivalent to an increase in acceleration9. So, a growing mass of a physical object may be perceived by us as in the same way as an increase in acceleration of the object (and vice versa). Is this why in the theory of relativity an accelerating object grows in mass and contracts in size? If a growth in mass equates a greater acceleration, then when either of them grows, so will the above (mass) lensing affect, which will make the object appear smaller in size, or more remote, for an observer. Then cosmological distances, at least to a certain extent, may be illusory. What they really communicate to us is information about the object’s mass and any changes in it. If so, then this may also raise a question as to the phenomenon of the «expanding» Universe and the cosmological redshift effect. As we watch remote galaxies, it appears that over time these 8 The light wave length will change. 9 As a simple formula: greater mass = greater gravitation = greater acceleration 26 galaxies move farther and farther away from us and they do so at an increasing speed. What if this simply means that over time these galaxies are getting more massive and compact? As they rotate and contract around their centres they turn into more concentrated structures of mass (again in both of its states). This will lead to ever stronger dispersed gravity fields associated with these galaxies and may well create a visual lensing effect of them moving farther away from us. Blackholes Since we’ve mentioned them, a few thoughts on blackholes. We know that they are not «holes». On the contrary, these are very massive physical objects with gravitation so immense that not even light (photons) can escape from them. So much matter was amassed together in one area of space that it resulted in a «gravitational collapse», where it all collapsed onto itself under its own weight forming a very compact physical objects of an enormous mass. (Or, perhaps, we simply perceive them to be compact because of the gravitational (mass) lensing effect). The conditions inside such formations, including the temperature and pressure, must be extreme. In our theory, this will inevitably lead to a commensurably immense concentration of dispersed mass10 and a dispersed gravity field of an immense strength in such an area of space. A blackholes’ immense dispersed gravity field will highly energise photons and produce really wild and long swings in their motion as if sending them on a really long path on their way to an observer. 10 Here, we have much more «fuel for the fire» of the particles’ transition between the two states. 27 Another inevitable relativistic effect of such a strong dispersed gravity field will be an enormous slowdown in the flow of time near a blackhole. So, a «day» that a photon (or light) spends there trying to get through the labyrinth of compressed space near a blackhole may well equal to a few million years when counted in our, much-faster flowing time. So, in fact, light may be coming from the black holes. Why wouldn’t it? Given the conditions inside, a blackhole should produce an enormous amount of heat, light and all other forms of radiation. Perhaps, it’s just coming out very slowly; relatively, from our perspective. Maybe we just need to be a little more patient? May be it’s just a matter of time before we see light from blackholes? Well, time will tell. Or maybe for some of them the time has come? Maybe when light and other types of radiation finally get through these labyrinths in their way in the vicinity of a blackhole and break free in truly the brightest and the most spectacular show of the Universe, quasars? Perhaps, driven by the blackhole’s rotation and electromagnetic polarisation, the light and radiation break out at the poles, where dispersed mass should be the thinest, and the dispersed gravity field the weakest. And maybe a quasar is the beginning of the end for a blackhole, where all the matter and energy it has accumulated inside has finally found a way to escape?11 In our theory quasars may become a necessary part of the lifecycle of blackholes that would ultimately lead to their dissolution or «evaporation». (Whether we can live long enough to witness it, is another question). 11 At the same time, it will probably depend on the amount of energy (matter) that escapes in a quasar and the amount of available nearby matter that the blackhole may still «consume» to keep itself stable (or grow). 28 Bending of Light Gravitation is believed to be responsible for the phenomenon known as refraction or «bending» of light as it passes near a massive physical object. In our theory this phenomenon may be explained slightly differently. When light travels near a massive physical object it crosses an area of a denser dispersed gravity field created by a higher concentration of dispersed mass near the massive object. The beam of light slows in this denser dispersed mass environment, quite similar to how it would slow and refract when it crosses from one medium into another, e.g. from air into water. In our view, it is the dispersed gravity field that causes light refraction by creating a denser medium in the way of a light beam, not the classical proper gravitation of a material physical body. Strictly speaking, a light beam doesn’t «bend» near massive physical objects; what occurs there is slightly different (although, the resulting visual effect is very much the same). In our theory it would be more correct to say that the front of the lightwave tilts slightly towards a massive physical object. In the following picture we break down a light beam coming to us from a star into three separate rays. As the light beam passes by a massive planet it crosses a denser dispersed gravity field, but it doesn’t do so uniformly. The ray closest to the planet will find itself in the most dense gravity field environment, where it will «get stuck» and slow down the most of the three rays. Accordingly, the ray farthest from the planet will slow down the least. This will result in the wavefront of the whole light beam tilting by a certain angle toward the planet, clockwise on our picture. 29 For us the visual effect of this will be as if light is coming to us slightly from the right rather than directly from the star. The right-most ray will reach us first. We shall instinctively turn to the right to face the front of the lightwave. In other words, we turn and look in the direction from where we (falsely) think the light is coming from. When we plot a projection of the front of the lightwave (as we see it) we get a false position of the star in space. So, technically speaking, the light beam doesn’t «bend» there. We simply receive a distorted picture of its motion, where its apparent direction (perceived by us to come from the right) diverges from its true direction, which is still a straight line from the star to us. In mechanical terms, this «gravitational» refraction of light may be more accurately described as «skidding» or «drifting» by the light beam in a denser medium rather than «bending». (Similar to a car that may go into a drift when the wheels on one side of the car run into a rougher patch on the road). So, in our view, light does not «bend» under the force of the classical Newtonian gravitation of a massive physical object; the light wavefront tilts towards physical mass in a denser medium of the dispersed gravity field near such an object. In the classical Newton’s theory gravitational forces work between physical objects with mass. Photons in a beam of light are massless. So, strictly speaking, they should be indifferent to 30 the classical Newtonian gravitation of a material physical object. Besides, there are other examples, where light refracts without any gravitational impact of physical mass. We know that light refracts in areas of space, where only the so-called dark matter (or what we call dispersed mass) is present. There are no visible physical objects in these areas that could be the source of the classical Newtonian gravitation. Further, as suggested by Einstein, light will «bend» in an accelerating elevator. Again, in this case this effect does not arise because of gravitation of any particular physical mass. Here, acceleration substitutes gravitation of mass12. In our theory, as the elevator moves through space with an acceleration, it will be crossing the lines of the dispersed gravity field ever more frequently, which is equivalent to being in a denser (stationary) gravitational environment, where the corresponding relativistic effects will come into play. Finally, we can re-create this effect anywhere by making light travel through a denser medium in its way. If we move a pencil behind a glass of water the pencil will bend when watched through water, i.e. light reflected by the pencil will slow or appear to change direction in a denser medium of water. Again, we managed to «bend» (or rather slow) light by making it pass through a denser medium or we can even say that we managed to «curve» space with the glass of water. This effect arises because of varying densities of media light passes through and not because of the gravity of water mass inside the glass, right? Then why would there exist different explanations for the same phenomenon depending on circumstances? In our view, what occurs in space is no different from these other cases. Light refracts, «bends» (or slows) when it passes through an area of a higher density of dispersed mass (or a stronger dispersed gravity field), rather than by operation of the classical Newtonian gravitational force of a material physical object. (We, of course, notice that, as a rule, there’s a massive physical object formed in such an area of space, so we say it must be the mass of the physical object that affects the passage of the light and curves space there). But we don’t really need classical gravitation of physical mass to «bend» light or to «curve» space, more generally. We only need different densities of media that light passes 12 As in our formula: (greater) acceleration = (greater) gravitation = (greater) mass. 31 through. In space a higher density of medium may be created either by being near a massive physical object or by moving with an acceleration. In both cases the effect of denser force lines of dispersed gravity fields will do the trick and provide a uniform explanation for this phenomenon in all settings. Motion of Solid Bodies Now, let’s extend this analysis to the motion of solid physical bodies in space. A higher concentration of dispersed mass in the way of a solid object will impact its motion quite the same way as it does for a beam of light. However, the outcome of this impact will be quite different owing to different physical characteristics and the composition of a solid body. We can model what would happen when a solid physical body runs into a denser dispersed mass environment in its way. Let’s follow an asteroid as it moves past a planet at a constant speed. As the asteroid enters the area of dispersed mass near the planet it will hit a denser medium (a «rougher patch on the road») and its lower part will slow down the most. The resulting effect of this impact on the solid body will be such that the asteroid will «trip and fall» or, in the open space, it will start to spin clockwise, towards the planet. The newly acquired spin momentum will affect the asteroid’s initial trajectory and it will begin to curve it «downward» to the planet. Depending on the distance, velocity and masses involved, this interaction with dispersed mass may curve the asteroid’s trajectory enough to send it into an orbit around the planet. 32 Following its new curved trajectory the asteroid will gradually move closer to the planet and deeper into its dispersed gravity field. As it moves deeper into an increasingly denser dispersed gravity field it will experience the relativistic length contraction effect, i.e. it will be gradually «shrinking» or contracting in diameter. As it contracts in diameter, its spin velocity will have to increase in order to conserve its angular momentum. This, in turn, will further curve its trajectory towards the planet, shortening the orbit. A shortening orbit will likewise require an increase in the rotation (angular) velocity around the planet. So, both of this processes will continue to amplify each other making the asteroid accelerate both in its spin and in its rotation around the planet, as it is necessary in order to conserve its angular velocity and momentum. As a result, the asteroid will be gradually moving toward the surface of the planet with an apparent acceleration, the effect commonly described as gravitation or gravitational attraction. If we remove from this picture the area of dispersed mass around the planet (which remains invisible to us in any event) this will indeed appear as if the asteroid is being pulled to a more massive planet by an «invisible force» of gravitation attraction and it accelerates on its way. (Or, alternatively, the asteroid will appear to follow the «curvature» of space near the planet). But, in our view, gravitational interaction between two massive physical bodies begins in an contact with the dispersed mass near them, which in its nature is no different form a contact with a solid mass, except that mass in its dispersed, disintegrated state provides for a much milder initial impact that at first only changes the trajectory of motion of the bodies. The bodies continue their inertial motion but the spin and the rotation momentum received by the bodies in this impact will do their work and — with the «right» distance and masses involved — may ultimately make them collide. Consistent with the classical theories of gravitation, the magnitude of the «invisible force» of gravitation and the rate of acceleration will depend on the distance, initial velocity and the masses involved. In our theory, the larger the mass of the planet, the farther its dispersed gravity field extends into outer space and the greater the distance at which its can «reach» and re-direct other massive objects in their motion. 33 Well, this may explain how one massive object may be «gravitationally pulled», or rather re-directed in its motion, toward another massive object. But then comes the next question: once the asteroid hits the surface of the planet, what makes it stay there? It’s no longer in motion and there’s no initial trajectory that can be curved toward the planet. Or why a ball thrown vertically falls back to the ground? Apparently, what we have described on a macro level for a solid physical body occurs on a micro level, too. Every solid physical body is a congregation of (massive) matter particles, or micro solid bodies. Interaction with the dispersed mass and the dispersed gravity field of the planet will have exactly the same effect on each individual matter particle as it has on the solid body as a whole, even when it sits still on the surface on the planet. The rotation of the planet around its axis rotates the gravity field of dispersed mass around it13. (Similar to the rotation of the atmosphere around the planet). This rotational motion of the planet’s dispersed gravity field substitutes the motion of (apparently still) particles on the surface of the planet. Indeed, it makes no difference whether it is a matter particle moves relative to the field or the field itself moves relative to a matter particle. The resulting effect is the same. In this interaction with the rotating dispersed gravity field of the planet each individual matter particle receives identical spin impulses that force them all to move in the same direction toward the concentration of mass (or the «centre of gravity»). Their motion from these impulses would have been quite similar to the motion of the asteroid in our previous example; they all would have followed a similar trajectory, or an «orbit», toward the centre of mass concentration, except that, unlike the asteroid in the open space, they encounter a hard obstacle in their (intended) way, the surface of the planet. Constant impulses from the planet’s rotating gravitational field keep sending them on a trajectory toward the centre of the planet but instead they end up being pressed to the surface, an obstacle they cannot overcome. On the aggregate these constant impulses to individual matter particles translate into a common (intended but unrealised) motion of the entire solid body in the «downward» direction, which feels like a force that presses everything to the surface of the planet. Since all 13 So, space not only contracts but it also literally curves near the planet. Another way to depict it may be a flow or a whirlpool of dispersed mass centred around the planet. In fact, even a linear motion of the planet in space may create this gravity field motion effect. 34 material objects are made of absolutely identical matter particles, in a given gravitational field they will all receive absolutely identical aggregate impulses, which will make all such material objects fall to the ground following a uniform trajectory and with a uniform acceleration. (So, as expected, the planet’s «force of gravitation attraction» will act upon, and pull all physical bodies equally simply because all physical bodies are equal in composition, i.e. made of the same matter particles). (This view will imply that the speed of rotation of the planet around its axis will have an effect on the strength of its gravitational field. The faster the planet rotates this field, the more intense will be the impulses it conveys to matter particles, the greater the force of the «gravitational pull» will be. Thus, two bodies of equal mass may have different gravitation depending on the speed of their rotation). 14 And, finally, we can note that dispersed mass present throughout space in the Universe naturally becomes the medium that transmits gravitational waves, or disturbances caused by the motion of massive physical objects. A large physical object (i.e. a large mass of matter particles) moving through space will acts upon similar matter particles (even in their dispersed state), pushing them «out of the way» and sending waves through the fields of dispersed gravity throughout space. Particle Colliders In the LHC experiments scientists reportedly detected standalone mass particles, or the Higgs bosons. That would mean that they managed to accelerate (or energise) matter particles sufficiently to make mass particles decouple from their carrier - matter particles (even if for a short time). In our theory that would mean that they managed to force a number of matter particles, or ordinary matter, to artificially transition into a high-velocity (high-energy) state, where mass exists separately in its dispersed form. Such an artificial increase in the concentration of dispersed mass (even if temporary) should lead to a corresponding increase in the density, or strength, of the dispersed gravity field inside the LHC. This would amount 14 This is leaving aside the counteracting effect of centrifugal forces arising in the rotation. 35 to artificially creating the dark matter effect inside the collider or temporarily increasing the density of the dispersed gravity field above what is typical for Earth, which should have very specific and observable relativistic effects. An increase in dispersed mass (dispersed gravity filed) should produce a space-time distortion inside the LHC during the particle collision process: space will contract and time will slow (although, possibly, very slightly). A pair of synchronised high-precision clocks may show this time dilation effect. The clock running inside the collider during the experiment should fall behind the synchronised clock outside. In a way, a particle collider works as a time machine, i.e. when it’s in operation it slows the flow of time for objects inside it. Alternatively, one can test the «gravitational» light refraction effect: a beam of light should «bend» inside or, possibly, even near the operating collider. (But, of course, we don’t know whether the particle collision process runs for long enough or energises a large enough number of particles to make these effects detectable using the currently available tools and instruments). * * * The ideas we have explored so far bring us to a model of the Universe, in which elementary particles may exceed the speed of light in their motion, at that point mass particles may decouple from carrier - matter particles and they may transition into another state, or mode of existence, inaccessible to our direct observation or physical contact. In this model of the Universe a number of physical phenomena — from wave-particle dualism, to dark matter, to relativity and gravitation — may find a common consistent explanation. While certain underlying initial assumption may sound as a divergence from well-established existing theories in physics, ultimately they all seem to fall quite in line with the existing theories, oftentimes supporting their respective views or simply arriving at them in a different way. What’s more, this approach to the composition and the structure of the Universe may allow to explain the process of the creation of the material visible part of the Universe. 36 Part II. The Creation 1. Before the Big Bang We believe the Universe is a two-component system, in which fundamental particles coexist in two different states, a visible (low-velocity or low-energy) state and an invisible and intangible for us high-velocity or high-energy state. Has it always been like this? Apparently, not. We know that the Universe, or rather its material visible part, was created in a cosmological event called the Big Bang. Scientists were even able to walked back in time the process of visible matter formation and calculated that the Big Bang must have occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. That’s when an epic explosion in the Universe occurred, creating a hot dense radiating plasma that was spreading and cooling. In this process elementary particles began to interact with one another, forming stable subatomic structures and then atoms, the first and the simplest of which were hydrogen and helium, the lightest elements of matter. Pulled together by their own gravity, these newly formed atoms of hydrogen and helium formed into large clouds of gas that over time continued to condense and compress. As they condensed and compressed, the pressure and the temperature inside these clouds were gradually rising to a point when they eventually heated up and bursted to become the first stars. The thermonuclear fusion processes inside the burning stars minted hydrogen and helium atoms into larger, more complex atomic structures leading to the formation of heavier material elements, including metals. These were then splashed out into space from the thermonuclear reactors of the stars and became the building material for planets and everything on them. So, we already have a fairly good picture of what happened after the Big Bang and how our visible material Universe has been developing since. But the description of the life of our visible Universe currently begins at 10-43 second after the Big Bang. No one knows exactly what happened in this first micro fraction of that second or what (if anything) existed before the Big Bang. 37 In our theory it now becomes fairly simple to explain what happened, although there still remains the question as to the cause or the reason why it so happened. Before the Big Bang the Universe existed only in one state, what we call here, the highvelocity or high-energy state, or the the state of dispersed mass of disintegrated and dispersed matter particles. In this state kinetic energy of particles moving at super-light speeds was so immense that any lasting interaction between them was impossible. The forces pulling them apart were much greater than any binding forces between them. (One can even call this state of the Universe a complete chaos, although we don’t know whether particles in this state somehow align or arrange themselves in any particular order). From the standpoint of our customary perception of things, rather than a material or physical substance, the Universe at that state could be more accurately described as an extremely powerful force field (or a combination of various force fields) induced and sustained by the hurricane of highlyenergised particles. In that state the Universe knew no space and no time. There were no determinable distances between the particles to measure in order to define space and no corresponding coordinate of time to apply to anything. (Indeed, it would be meaningless to try to measure a force field with a ruler, a clock or a weighting scale). The notions of space and time — the «where-and-when» dimensions — were irrelevant in that state of the Universe. These dimensions, or properties, specific only to ordinary matter will come into the Universe later, together with the creation of ordinary matter. In this sense, the Universe has no beginning (and possibly no end) either in space or in time; it pre-existed (and may possibly outlive) both. Then, 13.8 billion years ago, something happened in this state of the Universe, something that caused an epic explosion and a huge outburst of energy. In our view, what happened was a sharp slowdown of particles comprising the Universe to a speed at or below the speed of light. In this process, when an endless myriad of particles abruptly slowed down in their motion, they «lost» a lot of energy; or rather their enormous kinetic energy was transformed into other types of energy, such as heat and radiation, bursted out instantaneously in a huge explosion. For an outside observer, if one existed, such an explosion, an instantaneous transformation and an outburst of an unspeakable amount of 38 energy would surely sound like one very big bang, the Big Bang, whose echo still resonates in the Universe in the form of relic radiation, billions years on. As particles slowed down, their kinetic energy fell below their binding energy. When the binding forces of the particles outweighed their separation forces, they began to «notice» each other, interact and combine. Initially massless quarks and electrons combined with mass particles, creating the first physical objects with classical physical mass of their own. Now massive quarks combined into protons and neutrons and then into nuclei, even more massive physical objects with a positive electric charge. Then positively-charged nuclei combined with negatively-charged electrons to form even more massive physical structures, atoms. A huge amount of energy, the heat of the plasma, was absorbed in this processes of matter formation. (This is what we refer to as the «cooling» of the Universe). As we have discussed earlier, in our theory an increase in mass leads to, or creates a visual lensing effect of, an increase in distances between massive physical objects, as measured by the passage of light between them. An explosive growth of «individualised», concentrated mass of elementary particles (and their more complex combinations) resulted in an equally explosive growth in apparent distances or, in other words, an explosive apparent expansion of space. The physical space formed by ever-growing massive physical objects was swelling exponentially in all directions. (This is what we refer to as the «expansion» of the Universe). (Further, the distance between the nucleus of an atom and the electrons orbiting it may be tens of thousand times the size of the nucleus itself. On a more common scale, if the nucleus of an atom were one centimetre in size its electrons would be orbiting the nucleus about as far as one kilometre away. On this scale, each atom would require about two kilometres of available free space for it to form and exist. So, atoms (even the simplest ones) do need their space, lots of it. The formation of physical mass and the formation of the necessary distances between particles within each atom is what drove an impressive rate of expansion of physical space defining the material part of the Universe). In this process of matter formation, where particles first began to combine into massive physical structures, for the first time «distances» — mutual positions of particles in such stable structures — began to matter. They became determinable and actually measurable with a 39 ruler. That’s when space was created, as a characteristic of the visible material world that defines mutual positions of massive physical objects and measurable distances between them. And when in the first such structure one particle first changed its position against another this started the clock of time, or the other characteristic of the visible material world that defines a chain of sequential changes occurring in the structure of physical matter in space. And the material visible part of the Universe with customary space and time dimensions, so dear to us, came into existence.15 Space and time were created by, and in the process of, the creation of massive physical objects in the Universe, the first of which were elementary particles with own mass and their subatomic combinations. Space and time — the elastically intertwined and inseparable characteristics of ordinary physical matter — first appeared in the Universe together with ordinary physical matter as inherent properties or features unique only to ordinary physical matter. Before the formation of ordinary matter there was nothing in the Universe that could bear these properties or could have been described in these terms. As a rough analogy, we can think of water molecules that may exist as vapour in the air or crystallise into hard ice. In the state of vapour we shall have a hard time either actually seeing water or applying any geometric measurements to it. If we freeze it and form it into a tangible ice cube it will immediately attain certain new properties such as measurable size, volume and weight. In this state we can measure the matter of water with a ruler and assign certain geometric (or space) characteristics to it. If we heat it up into vapour again, all its geometric (or space) characteristics will vanish. Just as geometric (or space) characteristic come and go together with the ice cube, the space and time come and go with ordinary physical matter, as its own unique properties or characteristics. In this example, it makes no difference for water molecules in which state they currently are, be it ice or vapour; it only makes a difference for us because we can feel and touch them in one state but we can’t in the other. The same may apply to elementary particles in the Universe. The Universe may be quite a homogenous structure and it makes no difference for its constituent particles whether they exist within or outside atoms or whether they move 15 Ex nihilo nihil fit 40 below or above the speed of light. Again, it only makes a difference for us because we can feel and touch them in one state, the state of ordinary matter, but we cannot in their other state. So, while the above may explain the nature of the Big Bang and the state of the Universe that preceded it, there still remains the question as to the reason or the cause that made particles to slow down sharply in their motion. There’s no definitive answer to this but the following ideas come to mind. One possible explanation is a completely random formation of an atom (or, first, a subatomic particle with own mass) in the force field of the Universe. Such a massive particle would become a disturbance in the homogenous general force field, an obstacle and a trap in the way of other particles. It would disrupt what used to be a «motion of equals» in the force field; other particles that come within reach of its mass effects would be «gravitationally attracted» (or , in our theory, simply re-directed) to this massive object. In the course of this interaction they, too, would lose speed and become exposed to contact with other particles, which would in turn force them into formation of new atoms and so on. So, the formation of one single atom in the Universe — however random and accidental that might have been — could have set off a chain reaction of atom formation throughout the Universe. (This would in a sense imply the concept of singularity, as a reference to a (random) point in the Universe, from which the process of ordinary matter formation began and spread. This may also be an explanation for an explosive physical space expansion in the early Universe). Apart from it being a purely random event, another possible scenario may involve a more «rational» explanation with a reason or a cause, λόγος (logos), behind it.16 Supposedly, the force field of the Universe was generating (or has accumulated) a critical amount of energy or, perhaps, above what was optimal or sustainable. Excessive energy generated (or accumulated) in this force field had to be brought down, discharged or ejected somewhere outside. The problem was that there existed no «outside». So, another elegant solution was found to deal with this excessive energy in the Universe. After all, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος…, Gospel of John, 1:1, as in the original text in the Greek language. («In the beginning was the λόγος….» , where the Greek word λόγος (logos) may be translated both as «word» or as «reason» or «cause»). 16 41 It sufficed to slow down some of the elementary particles that were inducing this force field to a speed below the speed of light, which dramatically brought down the particles’ own (kinetic) energies. At lower speeds mutual attraction forces of the particles overcame the repelling forces of their kinetic energies and the particles began to interact and combine, ultimately forming the first atoms. What’s special about an atom is that it is a (charge) neutral structure, where a positive charge of the protons is offset by an equal negative charge of the electrons; besides, an atom ties (and «idles») certain mass (or mass particles) within it. The result of this process was that certain amount of energy was «boxed» into neutral «capsules» of atoms. Electrically-charged particles and mass tied together in atoms could no longer induce, or contribute, to the general force field of the Universe. So, the formation of atoms of ordinary matter could have been a way to neutralise and «store» inside them excessive energy generated or accumulated in the Universe. In a way, ordinary matter appeared in the Universe as «storage» of its (supposedly, excessive) energy. We may not know for sure what the «problem» was in the first place, but we see the mechanism that was deployed to solve it and we see the end result. If «packing» of energy into neutral «capsules» of atoms was the solution and it resulted in a reduction of the overall (free) energy in the Universe, then it is reasonable to assume that the initial «problem» was, in fact, excessive energy generated or accumulated in the system. (In this context, an eventual «random» formation of an atom could well have served as the trigger that had put this mechanism in action). 2. The Grand Equilibrium Let’s suppose that the formation of ordinary matter in the Universe was not a random, accidental event but rather it is a mechanism that allows the Universe to redistribute its constituent particles between the low-energy state of neutral ordinary matter and the highenergy (dispersed) state, as may be necessary in order to maintain a certain (perhaps, optimal) balance, or equilibrium, in its aggregate state. 42 The ideas that follow in this concluding chapter are purely theoretical and they will hardly find any practical method of verification; yet they may provide a basis for explaining certain phenomena in quantum physics. We now view the Universe as a two-component system, of which only one component, ordinary matter, is accessible to our direct observation. The second component remains inaccessible to our direct observation or («usual») physical contact but it does make it presence known by the energy it carries and in its interactions with other objects; accordingly, we describe it as an invisible and intangible field of forces that carries and transmits energy through space. To be precise, the Universe then is a two-component system only in our perception of it. Putting our perception aside, the Universe may well be quite a homogeneous structure made up of specific types of constituent elementary particles that may seamlessly transition between these two states, or migrate between these two components of the Universe, presumably, guided by certain internal «logic» of the system. First, this view will lead us to quite an obvious conclusion that the difference between energy (of the force field) and ordinary matter, or classical physical mass, then really reduces merely to our perception of things in the Universe; it is the same essence in its nature but our perception of it may vary under different conditions. So, it’s another way to arrive to the conclusion that energy may convert into mass and vice versa, as the Einstein’s theory of relativity tells us. They are equivalent in their physical effects simply because in essence they are one and the same. This would also mean that ordinary matter does not exit in the Universe on its own surrounded by void. Ordinary matter exists within a larger, more complex system of the Universe; or we can even say that ordinary matter exist within this Universal force field, being a part and, in a way, an offspring of it. Moreover, this second component, the Universal force field, then may be viewed as primary. As showed by the Big Bang, ordinary matter may be created, or spun off, from within this field and it may possibly be destroyed or absorbed back into it. So, the existence of ordinary matter in the Universe may well be only temporary, while the existence of a larger force field is not. 43 Second, where we may divert somewhat from the views of Einstein, is that this second component, the force field of the Universe, — and by extension the Universe as a whole — is not defined by our customary dimensions of space and time and, therefore, it is not limited by them.17 The Universe as a whole is not bound by the dimensions, or even the notions, of distances, times, and consequently, speed. These metrics are only relevant for, and apply to ordinary matter but they become meaningless with regard to the force field. When matter particles transition to the high-energy, invisible state, matter (in our common understanding of it) ceases to exist, taking space and time with it. So, the system of the Universe on the aggregate level is free from any of these limits of the material world. The Universe as a whole exists outside the dimensions or the notions of space and time. In fact, the opposite may be true: space and time exist in and within the Universe only as properties of its material component and only for as long as ordinary matter continues to exist in it. A better view of the Universe will then be that the Universe, while being quite homogenous in substance, may undergo certain changes or readjustments in its internal composition and structure, presumably, in the course of its evolution or following certain internal cycles. The Big Bang might have marked a new phase or a new cycle in life of the Universe, in which a part of its constituent particles had to transition to, and remain in the state of neutral ordinary matter. In this phase in life of the Universe the distribution of particles between low-energy (matter) and high-energy states has to be what it is now. Any deviation from this currently optimal aggregate state would trigger an internal reaction and a readjustment of the system in order to restore the necessary equilibrium between these two components. In other words, the Universe acts as a self-balancing system that can redistribute its constituent particles between the two states and maintain them in the necessary proportions, so that the required number of particles remains tied up in the neutral state of ordinary matter. If the system detects an imbalance, it will immediately step in and fix it by readjusting and rebalancing its components as necessary. For example, if an atom loses an electron the resulting standalone active positive charge of the proton will become a deviation from a balanced state of the system. In order to neutralise this excessive active positive charge of the 17 Thus, any attempt to find «the end» of the Universe will be futile. 44 proton, the system will return the electron back into the atom and restore the balance. In fact, the system may do it either by returning the same electron back into the atom or by «creating» (slowing down) another identical electron from the force field to replace the missing one. Either way will do it. Now, the question: where will the system put the missing electron? The answer: anywhere, where it will serve its purpose, with the purpose being to neutralise the positive charge of the proton. From the standpoint of our customary space dimensions, we can more or less guess where that will be, i.e. we are most likely to find the electron somewhere on the atomic orbit around the proton. In what exact position on the orbit? From a deterministic point of view we may want to know in advance where exactly the system will put it. Will it be to the right or to the left of the proton? The answer to this: for the system as a whole, it doesn’t matter. Either way, the mission will be accomplished. (Or, perhaps, in our customary space and time terminology we can say that it will occur wherever the nearest available electron happens to fly by at that time). The system as a whole does not operate in terms of the three-dimensional space coordinates. In this example, it will act at the level of the force field and the necessary readjustment of its constituent components will occur at that level, without any regard as to «where» we may think it occurs in «our» visible space. This may address certain questions of randomness of outcomes in quantum physics and our ability to determine only probable positions of elementary particles in space at any given time. (It is about what happens in order to restore the system’s overall balance, not where it happens in physical space). Similarly we can approach the phenomenon of quantum entanglement and the socalled quantum «teleportation» effect. The quantum entanglement means that the quantum state of a pair (or more) of elementary particles is correlated. To put it somewhat simplistically, when one entangled (or paired) particle is in an upright position the other one will always be upside down, or if one has a clockwise spin, the other will always have an anticlockwise spin. Such particles retain their entangled, or correlated, states permanently and, literally, no matter what. They appear to be able to synchronise their quantum states defying distances and the speed of light, as if they can exchange the information about their quantum states literally instantaneously at any distance. 45 In our view, this may mean that the grand equilibrium of the Universe involves and spans across multiple, if not all, possible characteristics of elementary particles, such as their electric charge, momentum, spin, polarisation, etc. So, for every particle with a positive electric charge there’s a counterbalancing particle with a negative charge, for every one with the right spin there’s a match with the left spin, and so on. A balanced distribution of various quantum states of particles is as important for the overall balance and stability of the system as is the balance of their electric charges. If a deviation or an imbalance occurs on any of these metrics, the system will automatically readjust its constituent components (or, in this case, their quantum states) accordingly, in order to restore the overall balance. Let’s say we monitor the quantum states of two entangled electrons, A and B. As we fix and determine one property of electron A, we shall see that the entangled electron B instantly attains the opposite property, regardless of how far apart they may be. What may really occur in this case is that our measurement (interference) creates a disturbance in the (dynamic) quantum state of electron A, resulting in a deviation from the overall balanced state of the system. This sets in action the system’s automatic readjustment and rebalancing that brings the entangled electron B in the opposite quantum state in order to counterbalance the new quantum state of electron A. Here, again, the necessary readjustment of the quantum state (or a chain of readjustments across a multitude of particles in the field) will occur at the level of the force field of the Universe, behind the veil of light, where the notions of distances, time and speeds are irrelevant and no longer apply. So, this may well appear to us to happen much faster than we would normally expect in our material part of the world. What’s more, in this example, the system does not necessarily have to readjust the quantum state of electron B. It may well use another (available) electron and «re-program» its quantum state to match the new quantum state of electron A. (As we discussed earlier, we cannot track an elementary particle continuously all the way; at times it becomes invisible to us when it accelerates above the speed of light). Thus, the system may well «create» — slow down and «throw» in our visible space — another identical electron with the characteristics perfectly matching those of the original electron B, including those characteristics that we perceive as its coordinates in space and time. Our original electron B may already be 46 someplace else in the Universe but we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between it and its newly created clone, would we? Quantum physics brought us to the boundary of these two components or two parts of the Universe; from our side we can already see glimpses of events and processes unfolding on the other side. While the visual side effects of what we see may seem puzzling, in substance it may all be very logical and rational. (We only need to focus on what is happening and why, as opposed to where or how it happens). 47 III. Conclusion So, we have come to the end of our story of the Universe, where hopefully most of the text is now written in black ink and we have a better view of a bigger picture. Now we may have a good idea how the material part of the Universe was created and how it all works. Yet, we’re still left with plenty of questions about the invisible part of the Universe. What and how brought it into existence? What sustains it and what, if anything, can change or bring it to an end? Or, perhaps, being as indestructible as the quantum particles comprising it, it has and it will continue to exit infinitely, outside the notions, or the limits, of space and time? And another quite important question for us: will the Universe always stay like this, as a two-component system where there’s a place and room for ordinary matter? Who knows. We know it hasn’t always been like this, so it may not always stay like this. Maybe at some point the Universe again will be able to absorb the extra energy presently «stored» in ordinary matter and the latter will dissolve back into it? Like an ice cube suddenly heated up, it would evaporate and dissolve in the air, taking space, time and everything material with it? If this were to happen, our visible material part of the Universe (including ourselves) will just melt into it, with atoms splitting into increasingly accelerating elementary particles flying apart throughout the entire Universe. In any event, this will probably happen with the speed of light (or faster yet)… and, if our material world were to come to an end like this, unfortunately, there will be no one to tell the end of the story and no one to listen to it. Or maybe this is indeed a cyclical process, where visible material «worlds» in the Universe come and go following certain cycles, or the breath, of the larger Universe. If so, then maybe in a few billion years we shall all have to start everything again from the beginning and there appears to be no way to find out… at least for now. Ιγκόρ Μαρμαλίδης March, 2020 48