Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist? A New Theory of Cosmology, the Stationary Energy Theory, has an Equation for Gravity that Makes Them Unnecessary
Author: Mark J. Mason
I would like to propose a new model of the structure of the universe. This model arises from using a different frame of reference to consider the universe, and gives rise to a new theory of gravity, with its own equation for gravitational force, that explains the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe and the flat rotational speeds of stars around galaxies without needing to propose the existence of “dark energy” or “dark matter.” It also, amongst other things, appears to achieve the long-sought-after goal in physics of unifying gravitation with nuclear and electromagnetic forces, proposes an alternative mechanism for the formation of black holes other than by stellar collapse, explains the speed and quantity of the fast solar wind, and provides a mechanism for the evolution of the organized complexity of the universe. The math has largely been worked out for the theory, and it corresponds well with what astronomers have observed. The most interesting part of this math is the theory's equation for gravity, and that it can be used to calculate a value for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that is in close agreement with the observed value.
This web page is a short introductory article about this new cosmology theory. At the end of the article there are 20 links to a series of articles that fill in the details of this model and provide the derivations for its mathematical equations. To go straight to these links, click here. For more information on scientific concepts in the following article, please mouseover and/or click their links.
Problems with Dark Matter and Dark Energy
The existence of “dark matter” has been inferred from the inability of Newtonian gravity and General Relativity to explain the
flat rotational speed of starsFlat Rotational Speed of Stars
This situation has, very understandably, led some researchers to propose theories of gravity that would explain the dynamics of the universe outside our solar system without the need to resort to the far-fetched explanation that our universe is dwarfed by dark matter and dark energy that we can’t even detect. Unfortunately, these theories have not, to date, proved very plausible.
I hope to show this new theory of mine is plausible enough to be taken seriously, at least as a heuristic—as a starting point for a different way of explaining gravity, arising from a new way of looking at the universe. This theory is, no doubt, not yet complete or totally free from errors, and I look forward to it being improved through the input of others. It was not, however, worked up as an alternative to dark energy and dark matter. It arose as a logical consequence of this cosmology’s new way of seeing the structure of the universe, something I hope to convince you of as quickly as possible, since it would be very easy to just ‘reverse engineer’ a gravity formula to explain the known rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This theory’s basic equation for gravitational force is:
Fg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ)/d . . . . . . . (32)
where 'm2' is the smaller mass in kilograms, 'd' is the distance between the masses in meters, α is a “deflection” angle and σ is a “splay” angle (both in radians). α is exactly equal to the angle by which light is bent on the way in to its closest point to the larger mass. Since light is also bent by an equal amount on its way out from the larger mass, α is exactly half of what the ‘gravitational lensing’ is for that object. So, at the surface of the sun, where the gravitational lensing has famously been measured to be 1.7511” of arc,
σ, the ‘splay,’ is no arbitrary value, either. It is the angle between each mass and the midpoint between them due to the curvature of the universe. More precisely, it is the distance to this midpoint divided by the radius of curvature of the universe. This radius of curvature may be very great within complexes of superclusters of galaxies, where the geometry of space is very ‘flat’, but between these supercluster complexes the radius of curvature is, overall, the same as the radius of the whole universe, 46 billion light years. This means that on this large scale:
σ = 0.5 x dly/4.6 x 1010 = dly x 1.09 x 10-11 radians
The value of σ is thus rooted in two very real values, the distance between the objects, and the radius of the universe, so it is certainly not arbitrary or ‘reverse engineered.’ α is a measure of how much space is 'curved' in a 'concave' way by the larger mass. σ is a measure of the 'curvature' of space in the opposite 'convex' way due to the universe being a 4-D sphere. In this respect the universe is very much like a golf ball, which has lots of concave dimples but is overall convex, curved outward, since it is a ball, after all! Within the curved in 'dimples' of the universe gravity is attractive, but between dimples, where space is curved outward overall, gravity becomes repulsive.
When calculating forces between large objects like the sun and planets in the close confines of the solar system, σ is tiny compared to α, and can be ignored, but when looking at the huge distances between superclusters of galaxies, and especially between complexes of these superclusters, σ becomes greater than α and the force of gravity becomes negative, and this drives the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Let’s look first at the case where σ is insignificant. In this case, this theory’s equation becomes: Fg = ˝m2c˛α/d, and it should, when evaluated for a particular situation, give the same result as Newton’s equation. So, let’s compare the results we get in a real situation by using this equation and Newton’s to find the gravitational force in Newtons of a 1kg mass (m2 = 1) at the surface of the sun.
On the surface of the sun light is bent by 1.7511” arc, so α is half that, or 0.87555” arc. Converting to radians, this is: (0.87555/(60*60))pi/180 = 4.24479 x 10-6 radians. Using this theory’s equation, Fg = ˝m2c˛α/d , this figure for α, and m2 = 1 we get:
F = 0.5 x 1 x 299,792,458 x 299,792,458 x 4.24479 x 10-6 /695,700,000 = 274.19 Newtons.
Using Newton’s equation, Fg = Gm1m2/d˛, and m2 = 1, we get:
F = 6.67390 x 10-11 x 1.98855 x 1030 x 1/(695,700,000 x 695,700,000) = 274.20 Newtons.
As you can see, the two results are as close to being equal as could be expected, considering the limited precision of the different inputs used by each equation. Only four significant figures are justified, and at this precision both results are equal at 274.2 Newtons. (Since this 1 kg mass would exert a force of 9.8 Newtons on Earth, this makes the force of gravity on the sun’s surface about 274/9.8 = 28 times greater than on Earth.)
I have just shown that when σ is tiny, this theory’s basic equation for gravity is in close agreement (in correspondence) with Newton’s equation, and that σ itself, when it comes into play, is not an arbitrary figure, but one based on real, relevant, observed values. In other words this equation has not just been ‘reverse engineered’ to give the desired results, it is a real and useful equation descrbing reality.
To use this theory’s basic equation for gravity, in most cases we need to be able to calculate α and σ to slot into the equation. I have derived equations for these, in terms of SI units, and they are, along with the basic equation again, as follows:
Fg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ)/d . . . . . . . (32)
σ = d x 1.14888 x 10-27/f . . . . . . (33)
'f' is a flatness factor, which can be quite high within superclusters of galaxies, where space can be very 'flat,' but, as already discussed, equals 1 on the very large scale of the universe.
Another way to find α is to equate this theory's basic equation for gravity, with σ = 0, to Newton's equation for gravity and solve for α:
˝m2c˛α/d = Gm1m2/d˛
Canceling m2 from both sides, dividing both sides by c˛, and multiplying both sides by d and 2, we get:
α = 2Gm1/c˛d
which you may recognize and being exactly half of the well-known equation for gravitational lensing:
We did, of course, start off by saying that the deflection angle, α, is exactly half the amount light is deflected by gravitational lensing, so this is another confirmation that our math is correct, and that this theory's equation for gravity is a real equation for gravity.
This theory's basic equation for gravity can, as might be expected from the above math, be derived from Newton's equation for gravity and the gravitational lensing formula, and this is the second way I do it in Article 15. Since it is such a simple derivation, I am going to present it here in this Introductory Article, as well:
Derivation of Stationary Energy Theory's Basic Equation for GravityStationary Energy Theory goes beyond General Relativity in proposing that the "concave" curvature of space which objects with mass cause, and α is a measure of, is reduced over great distances by the "convex" curvature of space arising from the universe being, overall, a four-dimensional sphere. This "convex" curvature is called the "splay," σ, in this theory, and σ is equal to half the distance between the two objects divided by the average radius of curvature of the universe in the space between them. Stationary Energy Theory thus proposes that the force of gravity is in proportion to α - σ, and can, at great distances, where σ exceeds α, become a negative force, or repulsion, instead of an attractive force. To derive an equation for gravitational force based on this does not require the mechanism proposed by this theory for how matter bends space, but depends only on the fact that space is bent. We will start by including (α - σ), the net angle of bending, as one term of the equation, and specifying 'R' as the rest of the terms, such that:
Fg = R(α - σ)
At close distances, such as within our solar system, where σ limits to zero:
Fg = Rα
Where σ = 0, this equation should give the same result as Newton's equation, so:
Rα = Gm1m2/d˛
R = Gm1m2/d˛α
We have defined α as half of the gravitational lensing around an object. Since the equation for gravitational lensing is θ = 4Gm1/c˛d, then
α = 2Gm1/c˛d
Putting this value for α into the above equation for R, we get:
R = (Gm1m2/d˛) × (c˛d/2Gm1)
Cancelling out the 'G's, the 'm1's and one of the 'd's, we get:
R = m2c˛/2d
Substituting this back into our original equation, Fg = R(α - σ), we get:
Fg = m2c˛(α - σ)/2d
Or, multiplying top and bottom by ˝, we get this theory's Basic Equation for Gravity:
Fg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ)/d . . . . . . . (32)
This Theory's Basic Equation for Gravity Accurately Predicts the Rate of the Acceleration of the Expansion of the UniverseWe have now shown, in two different ways, that this theory's basic equation for gravity gives the same values as Newton's equation when σ = 0, but what about at great distances where this equation says σ significantly reduces the force of gravity, and can even make it negative so it is a repulsive force? The ultimate test of this would be to apply the formula on the grand scale of the universe to complexes of superclusters of galaxies to calculate how much acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe it would produce, and compare the result to what astronomers have measured. I in fact do this in Article 16, but using a different form of this theory's gravity equation to make the calculations easier.
In Article 15, as well as deriving this theory's basic equation for gravity, I also derive this one-step, easier to use, form of it:
Fg = Gm2(m1 – (0.77358d˛/f))/d˛ . . . . . (34)
where ‘Fg’ is gravitational force in Newtons. When positive it is an attractive force, when negative it is a repulsion. ‘G’ is the universal constant of gravitation, ‘m1’ and ‘m2’ are the masses in kilograms of the larger and smaller objects that are attracting or repelling each other, ‘d’ is the distance between them in meters, and ‘f’ is the space flatness factor between the objects, already mentioned, that I estimate to be about 2,500 within our local supercluster of galaxies (except around black holes, where space becomes increasingly curved and ‘f’ gets much smaller). On the vast scale of the universe, though, it is worth reiterating that f = 1.
This equation (34) is the one I use in Article 16 to calculate the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (though I've also done the calculation with the basic equation and got the same result). The result I get (a negative one indicating a repulsion) is:
7.34 x 10-10 m/s/s.
The observed rate of the acceleration of the universe is usually quoted as 73.8 ± 2.4 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = million parsecs), which which when converted to SI units gives: 73.8 km/s/3.26 x 106 years = (73.8 ± 2.4 x 1,000)/(3.26 x 1,000,000 x 365.25 x 24 x 3,600) m/s/s =
7.17 ± 0.23 x 10-10 m/s/s.
As you can see, the calculated result from this theory’s equation for gravity is within the margin or error of the observed value! This shows that this theory's equation for gravity is accurate when σ is high as well as when it is effectively zero, making it accurate across the full scale of the universe. Showing how gravity can account for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, of course, makes 'dark energy' unnecessary, so it is a prediction of this theory that dark energy, as distinct from the mechanisms this theory proposes to account for negative gravity, will never be found.
So, does this theory predict any differences from Newton's theory in how gravity works in our solar system? Yes, but only extremely slight differences. Assuming a flatness value, 'f,' of around 2,500 in the spiral arms of our galaxy where we live, which seems to fit in with various observed values in physics and astronomy (some of them mentioned in the supplementary articles), this theory's equation for gravity shows our sun should attract objects less than or equal to its own mass up to a distance of about 8.5 light years, and slightly repel such objects if they are further away than this. Within our solar system, though, the equation so closely approximates Newton’s equation that it would be difficult or impossible to measure the difference in most situations. At 0.085 light years from the sun, 182 times the distance of the orbit of Neptune, and far beyond the orbits of most comets, the force of the sun’s gravity would only be reduced to 0.9999G (that is, 0.9999 of what Newton's equation gives). At the orbit of Neptune, it would be 0.9999999968G.
We will now go on to look at how this theory models the structure and function of the universe, and how its equation for gravitational force arises from the model.
This model of the universe, or cosmology, has been developed from basic first principles, by looking at the constancy of the speed of light in a different way than physics has to date done. The model leads naturally to a theory that explains how gravity works in terms of the interaction of fundamental particles within a universal energy field.
I will attempt, in the short remaining space of this article, to explain the basis of the theory. It is based on a model of the structure of the universe that is significantly different than previous models, and that has the power to simply explain why the universe is the way it is in many important ways. There will not be space in this article, however, to show how most of the equations of the theory are derived, to present many of the extensive ramifications of the theory, or even to fully present my reasoning. If you are interested in these, I refer you to a series of articles at the end of this article that further elaborates on the theory.
A different way of looking at the constancy of the speed of light
The famous Michelson-Morley Experiment, done in 1887, showed that the speed of light is always observed to be the same, regardless of the speed of the observer. Observations of binary stars likewise show the speed of light is always observed to be the same, regardless of the speed of the source of the light. This led to the abandonment of the notion that light is transmitted through a medium referred to as the 'ether.' The question then arose: with respect to which frame of reference (if not the ether) does light and other EMR move at its observed velocity of 'c'? Einstein answered that light moves at velocity 'c' with respect to all frames of reference, and that all frames of reference are equally valid. This was his extension of the principle of Newtonian 'relativity' to include electromagnetic radiation. This referred to three-dimensional frames of reference within space, and I would agree that this is true for all frames of reference in 3-D space. In the diagram below which uses a balloon as a model of the universe, none of the polka dots on the 2-D surface of the balloon can have a special claim to be in any way more central or important than any other. When we look at the balloon in three dimensions, however, we can see there is a center to the balloon that is within it and equally distant from all points on the surface of the balloon. The same is true when we look at our four-dimensional universe from a four-dimenisional perspective. No place in the 3-D "surface" of our universe is in any way special, but there is a "center" of our 4-D universe that could be the basis for a four-dimensional frame of reference, and that "center" is the "event" of the Big Bang. With this in mind, there is another way of looking at the constancy of the speed of light that considers the possibility that the speed of light may be a relative speed, within the 4-D Big Bang frame of reference, and this is what this new theory, presented here, does.
This theory's way of stating the observed
constancy of the speed of lightConstancy of the Speed of Light
Other things being equal, it would be equally valid to consider either matter or energy to be “always at rest.” And physics has traditionally seen matter as being at rest (or almost), and electromagnetic radiation as traveling at the speed of light with respect to all matter, regardless of its speed. The problem with this, however, is that matter is clearly not always at rest, as it is often moving with respect to other matter. In particular, we know the universe is expanding, like a balloon being blown up, and all matter is moving away at a very fast speed from the event in space-time where the Big Bang occurred.
This would make the analysis very difficult if we were to choose to consider matter to be at rest, as I believe it has done for physics to date. So, when looking at matter and energy in this new way, it greatly simplifies and clarifies the analysis to consider that it is energy that is always at rest, both in space and in time. One can then propose that all matter is moving away from the Big Bang point (or 'event') at exactly the speed of light through
four-dimensional space-timeFour-dimensional space-time
From this perspective, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) just seems to us to be moving at the speed of light because we are moving through a “stationary” EMR field at that speed due to the expansion of the universe. This switch in reference frames to seeing all EMR as being a part of a “stationary” energy field, universal in nature, through which all matter is moving at the speed of light, is the critical insight of this theory and the foundation upon which its model of the universe is built. Everything else in this theory falls into place fairly simply once this assumption is made, with only simple math needed to derive equations that accurately describe reality and that resolve many significant dilemmas in modern physics.
The question of what is moving and what is “stationary” has always been important in cosmology. Ptolemy’s cosmology, which had the Earth being stationary and the sun and planets moving around it, made the motions of planets seem very complicated, requiring intricate combinations of
epicycles, deferents and equantsEpicycles, Deferents and Equants
This way of looking at matter and energy implies that when beings made of matter, like ourselves, are apparently at rest, we must actually be moving at the speed of light in some way that we can or can’t detect. There is, of course, a movement we can detect, even when we are apparently at rest, and that is our movement through time. If we assume that what we sense as a movement through time, when we are “at rest,” is caused by us moving through the electromagnetic energy field of the universe at the speed of light, “c,” then the
Lorentz transformation for time intervals, the famous “time dilation” equation of Special RelativityTime Dilation Equation
According to this theory, matter did not start moving through time, experiencing the passing of time, until after the Big Bang, however the time dimension existed prior to that as one of the four dimensions of spacetime, scattered through which was a vast energy field. 'Eternity' might be a good word to describe what existed before the Big Bang, and that still exists along with the material universe that is expanding through it, creating the phenomenon, in matter, of time passing.
It is important to note that, under this theory, in order for our universe to be
In this way, a model of the structure of the universe begins to emerge from the foundation of our new, Big-Bang centered, four-dimensional, frame of reference. As we shall see, what emerges is a model of the universe that is basically a four-dimensional sphere. This “sphere” is expanding at the speed of light due to matter moving away from a starting event (the Big Bang) at the speed of light through the time dimension. The radii of the sphere are in the time dimension, and the “surface” is in the three space dimensions, with hundreds of thousands of “flat” areas on this 3-D “surface,” like the dimples on a golf ball (where the geometry of space is very close to “flat”), each one occupied by a complex of superclusters of galaxies. This theory provides a specific explanation, arising out of its equations, for why there are these flat areas, and when observed data about the universe is plugged into these equations, they predict sizes for the flat areas of between about 400 million and a billion or more light years across — big enough to contain complexes of superclusters of galaxies, but small enough that different supercluster complexes, which have voids between them, be in different flat areas. (See Article 4 and Article 13 for more on the structure of the universe, including the math.) "
Because this model of the universe is built on the idea that all matter is moving through a "stationary" universal energy field of EMR, and this suggests a very different structure for the universe than has previously been believed, I have provisionally called this model and its equations the “Stationary Energy Theory.”
An Easy Derivation of E = mc˛
According to the Stationary Energy Theory, all matter is moving at the speed of light with respect to the four-dimensional “Big Bang / Universal Energy Field” frame of reference, even if most of this movement is through the time dimension, and is experienced by us as the passing of time. Since kinetic energy (the energy an object has because of its speed) is given by the equation: E = ˝mv˛, where ‘v’ is the velocity, or speed, of the object and ‘m’ is its mass, it follows that the amount of kinetic energy held by a piece of matter of mass ‘m’, traveling at the speed of light ‘c’ as it is in this frame of reference, that would be released if it made the quantum transition to being electromagnetic radiation, which is stationary with respect to this frame of reference, would be:
E = ˝mc˛ . . . . . . . . (10)
But if a piece of matter, an atom or a subatomic particle, is traveling at the speed of light, how can it be suddenly slowed down to zero speed, so its kinetic energy can be released? Newton’s first law of motion says:
This means that to stop a particle like this there must be an external force—it cannot just stop itself. But what could this external force be? The only obvious thing that could stop a fast moving particle in its tracks like that would be if it collided with a particle of the same mass going the opposite direction at the same speed, like two cars in a head-on collision. This would mean a particle of matter would have to collide with a particle of the same mass traveling in the opposite direction through space-time (most often largely in the time dimension) at the same speed, “c”.
In this situation, this head-on collision would release the kinetic energy in both particles, and reduce the speed of both particles to zero, the quantum state of electromagnetic energy, and so release the energy as electromagnetic radiation. Since such “backward through time” particles would be traveling at twice the speed of light relative to us, and would be extremely tiny, we would not be aware of them except when they make these collisions with ordinary forward-through-time matter. Such a collision would release an equal amount of kinetic energy from both particles into the Universal Energy Field we see as electromagnetic radiation. The total energy released, in terms of the mass of the particle we are aware of, which has mass “m”, would thus be:
E = ˝mc˛ + ˝mc˛
And adding the two terms on the right, we get:
E = mc˛ . . . . . . . . (11)
These energy releasing collisions would have to be totally “inelastic” for all the kinetic energy to be absorbed in head-on collisions. This theory proposes that these particles repel each other, when they are in motion with respect to each other, with a force that is both electrical and magnetic in nature. As a result, the kinetic energy would be absorbed into an electromagnetic standing wave of alternating electrical and magnetic fields as the particles rapidly slow down to zero speed and become photons (particles of light). We see this standing wave moving relative to us at the speed of light because of our own motion at that speed. This explains why electromagnetic energy has, at the same time, both a wave nature and a particle nature.
And since the conversion of electromagnetic energy to matter is the inverse of converting matter to energy, happening when EMR waves accelerate particles up to the speed of light, it also explains why matter, like energy, has a dual wave-particle structure, with the wave manifesting to us as a standing wave. An example of this is an electron appearing as a standing wave in its orbital around an atom. When the mass of an electron goes up, due to it absorbing energy and converting it to matter, the energy of the standing wave increases so it occupies a higher orbital. The opposite effect of an electron manifisting as a less energetic standing wave occupying a lower orbital happens when matter is converted to energy and photons and waves of EMR are released.
So we can see that Stationary Energy Theory not only recognizes, but also explains why, both matter and energy have a dual wave-particle nature. This is Niels Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which says that EMR consists of both waves and particles at the same time, and that the wave and particle natures complement each other. Since the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Theory arises as a result of this wave-particle duality, it follows that this theory is fully compatible with, and fully accepting of, the Uncertainty Principle. It is usually said that the Uncertainty Principle is a result of both the wave-particle duality, because a wave is spread out over space and doesn't just occupy one point, and the unavoidable interaction between what is being observed and the instrument doing the observing. When you think about it, though, this second factor, the unavoidable interaction, also depends on wave-particle duality. When any type of EMR is used to measure the position of a particle, the accuracy of the position is limited to the wavelength of the EMR used (uncertainty in position depends on wave nature), but the accuracy in measuring the momentum of the particle is limited by the momentum of the photon of EMR used to measure it, as it can, through collision, change the momentum of the particle (uncertainty in momentum depends on particle nature).
Stationary Energy Theory, of course, also quantizes matter and energy as such, saying they are the same thing in two quantum states, one (energy) being in a state of rest in space and time compared to a Big-Bang centered frame of reference, the other (matter) always traveling at the speed of light compared to the same frame of reference, although this constant speed is a vector addition of an object's speed through space and its speed through time. As a result, Stationary Energy Theory is a quantum theory in itself, and can, I believe, fully incorporate historic Quantum Theory within it. This is not to say that I think God 'plays dice' with the universe. The macro universe we live in is full of 99.999999999% certainties, which is a far thing from the chance play of a game of dice.
The proposal of the existence of “backward through time particles” in order to explain how matter can make the quantum transition to being electromagnetic energy (EMR), follows logically from this theory’s “Universal Energy Field” model, simply and correctly yields the famous and long-validated equation E = mc˛ and elegantly explains why electromagnetic energy has both a wave and a particle nature, but is none-the-less a dramatic change in how we see the universe, and one which I entertained fleetingly for many years before having the courage to whole-heartedly embrace it. Having embraced it, however, this model's theory of gravity, already shown to accurately describe reality, followed simply and easily from it, in terms of interactions between “backward through time particles” (BTTPs) and “basic particles” (BPs) of ordinary (forward through time) matter. How this happens, we'll get to soon.
Meanwhile, I should say that the concept of collisions between normal matter and backward through time matter yeilding energy according to E = mc˛ is not entirely new. Stephen Hawking, in his article "The Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes" (Scientific American, January 1977), says that, in Quantum Theory, an antimatter particle can be can be seen as "being really a [normal] particle that is traveling backward in time." And, of course, antimatter particles, like backward through time particles, turn into energy according to E = mc˛ when they come into contact with ordinary matter. Also, antimatter particles, like backward through time particles, are not normally seen in the universe and are only observed where there have been high-energy collisions such as in particle accelerators. Could antimatter and backward through time particles actually be one and the same thing?
Basic Particles of Matter
In these energy-releasing collisions between basic particles of ordinary matter (BPs) and backward through time particles (BTTPs) , the mass of a single colliding particle would have to be small enough that the energy in the least energetic possible photon of electromagnetic radiation would correspond to its mass in the equation E = mc˛. Then the simultaneous collisions of multiple particles (possibly in clusters) would lead to the release of higher energy photons. To produce a single quantum of ultra low frequency radio waves, the least energetic EMR known, the mass of a “basic particle” (BP), would have to be about 10-53 kg — vastly smaller than any currently known subatomic particle, but about the same size as the proposed strings in String Theory. Since the mass of an electron is about 10-30 kg (9.1 x 10-31 kg), an electron would be made up of about 1023 “basic particles.” (For the math on this, see Article 5.)
These “basic particles” (BPs) would be the smallest subatomic particles out of which all other particles are made. Since they would be the basic building blocks of matter, this theory proposes that they have electromagnetic attractive forces between them when they are traveling forward in time together that would, when they are combined to form the fundamental particles of nature, explain the strong interactions and electroweak forces of Quantum Theory. When they are traveling backward through time (as BTTPs), these particles repel the same kind of particles going forward in time (BPs) as they approach each other and pass. (An attraction going forward in time is, logically, a repulsion going backward through time. To help you understand this, consider a movie scene of a couple rushing into each other’s arms. When played backwards, the couple will be retreating from each other.)
Because of this repulsion, it would only be particles approaching each other on a direct collision course that would actually collide and release their mass as energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), as particles even slightly off to one side would repel each other and pass clear of each other. According to this theory, these repulsions create the force of gravity.
How Backward Through Time Particles (BTTPs) Explain Gravity
The attractive strong interactions, weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces between basic particles (BPs) hold together the structures of matter, and as a result resolve themselves over very tiny distances. This theory proposes, however, that the repulsive forces between BTTPs and BPs, though they are the same forces operating in reverse, can operate at much greater distances, since these repelling forces do not resolve themselves within the structure of matter, but operate between two complementary domains of matter: forward through time and backward through time. The ability of these forces, acting together, to operate at large distances across these domains leads to an explanation of how gravity works. (Note that it is at this point that the Stationary Energy Theory brings into its sight the long-sought-after unification of quantum and gravitational forces - but more on this later in this article.)
When examined, it becomes clear that the way “backward through time particles” are deflected by, and repel, ordinary particles of matter (BPs) causes particles of matter to be forced toward each other, and so apparently be attracted to each other in the way we see gravity work. It turns out that the gravitational force between two objects of ordinary matter is proportional to the net angle that the “backward through time particles” (BTTPs) are deflected by them when passing them, and that this angle of deflection is exactly half the angle of deflection of light passing the same object. This is a very small angle — for an object as huge as our sun it is only about 0.875 seconds of arc. This angle of deflection is effectively reduced by the “splay,” (angling outward, see Fig 7, below) arising from the curvature of the universe, between two objects moving forward in time. When, at great distances from each other, this “splay” between two objects exceeds the deflection of the BTTPs, the gravitational attraction between the objects will become a repulsion. The following two diagrams are a rough illustration of how this gravitational attraction and repulsion work according to this theory, as BTTPs and BPs of matter repel each other:
This theory’s basic formula for gravitational force, as mentioned earlier, is:
Fg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ)/d . . . . . . . (32)
where α is the “deflection” angle and σ is the “splay” angle (both in radians). The effect of the larger mass m1 divided by its distance from m2 is built into α.
This equation is interesting in a number of respects. It has no need for a constant of gravitation, or any constant, for that matter (except for c, the speed of light, which this theory suggests may vary over long periods of time), thus it is very revealing of the nature of gravity. The lack of the need for a constant of gravitation is because the force of gravity on an object is a result of that object’s kinetic energy, as it moves forward through time at the speed of light (˝m2c˛). We know that force = energy/distance, and there is no reason why gravitational force should be any different. The actual gravitational force, though, is only the result of the deflected kinetic energy divided by the distance from the attracting mass, which is why it is then multiplied by the net angle of deflection (α – σ). The mass of the larger object is not even needed, provided we know at what angle it deflects light and backward through time particles.
The gravitational energy of a smaller mass (m2) in the gravitational field of a larger mass (m1) is the gravitational force on m2 multiplied by the distance it can operate over, which is the distance, ‘d’ between the two masses. So this gravitational energy is:
Eg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ)d/d
Which, cancelling out the ‘d’s becomes:
Eg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ).
Since α – σ is the total angle of deflection of the backward through time particles (which have the same mass as m2), we can see that the gravitational energy equals the deflected kinetic energy of these particles. If, instead of passing close by and only very slightly deflecting each other, producing gravitational energy, these particles collide, then, as we have previously seen, the whole kinetic energy of both particles will be released into the universal energy field to produce an energy of E = ˝m2c˛ + ˝m2c˛, or: E = m2c˛.
In this way we can see that nuclear and electromagnetic energy and gravitational energy derive from the same kinetic energy of matter moving through time at the speed of light. Gravitational energy is just the tiny amount of the overall kinetic energy that is deflected as forward through time and backward through time particles pass by each other, whereas nuclear and electromagnetic energy come from all the kinetic energy in certain particles being released as they collide and make the transition from moving at the speed of light to being stationary within the universal energy field. As was foreshadowed earlier, this achieves the long-sought-after goal in physics of unifying gravitation with nuclear and electromagnetic forces. It also explains why gravity is a vastly weaker force than the electromagnetic force - it is created by tiny deflections of the kinetic energy of particles, whereas electromagetic forces arise from the total annihilation of the kinetic energy of particles when they collide.
This theory, through its model of the structure of the universe, goes on to explain a number of other previously unresolved issues in physics, including the speed and quantity of the fast solar wind, how black holes can be caused by large rotating masses rather than by stellar collapse, how such rotationally-caused supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies cause the gravitational anomaly that dark matter was proposed to explain, and why space within superclusters of galaxies is close to being flat, while the larger universe is, overall, approximately spherical. In every case the equations arising out of this theory produce values that are in close agreement with what astronomers have observed. In other words, this theory’s math does add up correctly and agrees with observed values, and this must give the theory some credibility. You can read about these other explanations, and examine for yourself the derivation of the theory's equations and the predictions that arise from them in the supplementary articles at the end of this article.
Perhaps the most important thing, though, that the Stationary Energy Theory gives physics the scope to explain, is the puzzling excess of order in a universe that one would expect to be reduced to a state close to random disorder (entropy). The rest of this article addresses this.
Stationary Energy Theory Explains the Existence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the CMB Rest Frame
The very basis of Stationary Energy Theory is that the electromagnetic radiation of the universe is at rest in a “stationary” universal energy field, and that our material universe is expanding through it at the speed of light. EMR originates from sources like light bulbs and stars, when “basic particles” moving forward in time at the speed of light collide with BTTPs moving backward through time at the speed of light. Their speed after the collision becomes zero, and they drop back into the EMR quantum state, and become a part of the stationary, Universal Energy Field (which appears to us to be moving at the speed of light, though it is in fact us that is moving - in the frame of reference centered on the primal event of the Universe, the Big Bang). Since the Big Bang, a substantial amount of matter has dropped back like this into the Universal Energy Field, and this has made much energy available to the universe. Let’s call this “New Energy.”
Under this theory, though, at the time of the Big Bang, this energy field
already existed, and it was within it that the Big Bang took place and
expansion of the universe has taken place, and will continue to take place for
countless eons into the future. It seems reasonable to suppose that such a huge
energy field would not just have been empty at the time of the Big Bang, but
would already have been populated with a matrix of energy. Let’s call this “Old
Energy.” As the four dimensional spherical universe of matter expands past the
“particles” of energy in this matrix of Old Energy, one would expect the energy
to be detectable to us as EMR. It would not come from any discernable source,
though. It would just originate from countless “stationary points” in space and
spread out in all directions. This would make it appear highly diffuse and
scattered. And since it would be originating from “stationary points” no part
of it would show a
Doppler shiftDoppler Shift
Stationary Energy Theory predicts that this “Old Energy” could exist and, if so, should be able to be detected as EMR. Indeed, I believe it has already been detected, because Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) has exactly the qualities, just outlined, that this Old Energy should have.
The existence of the CMB “rest frame” is also evidence that, in space-time, all speeds are not just relative to each other, but that there actually are absolutely “stationary points” as this theory predicts. I propose that the CMB rest frame is one and the same as the grid of “stationary points” of this theory.
Old Energy and Hindu Cosmology
Since the publication of The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, we have become increasingly aware of the parallels between modern physics and some of the ancient wisdom from the East.
Hindu cosmology says there are three planes of existence, the “Causal,” a realm of pure ideas (like the world in which theoretical physicists work), the “Astral,” a realm of forms made only of energy, and the “Physical,” where the energy blueprint created in the Astral is transformed into physical reality. The physical universe is considered by Hindus to be a small clump of matter attached to the vastly larger Astral universe of “light” (or energy) that dictates its form.
It has not escaped my attention that there is an uncanny similarity between this Hindu cosmology and the Stationary Energy Theory model of the universe I have presented here. The Universal Energy Field, within which the Big Bang happened, and into which the physical universe continues to expand, is like the Astral plane, a domain of pure energy, with the physical universe being substantially smaller than the Universal Energy Field, as it is continually expanding into it, and will, presumably, continue to do so for billions of years to come.
The Astral is filled with creative energy, and the Universal Energy Field is filled with “Old Energy” (as well as New Energy). The energy forms in the Astral are a blueprint for what emerges in the physical, so, to continue this parallel, could it be that the “Old Energy” (CMB) plays a similar role, and is a kind of continually evolving “blueprint” that is progressively “scanned” as we travel past it at the speed of light through time, and that it determines the forms that matter takes as it moves through time?
In terms of the Stationary Energy Theory, one of the things this “scanned information” could code for would be which particular basic particles in matter would collide with oncoming BTTPs, and which wouldn’t. This would play a big part in determining, among other things, the energy levels of electrons around atoms, and in turn the whole chemistry of substances, and the biochemistry of life.
A widely acknowledged problem with the idea that CMB is radiation left over from the intense energy of the Big Bang is how very uniform this energy is — it gives very little scope for the differentiation into galaxies and clusters of galaxies that has subsequently occurred. But if this radiation is “coding” for how physical reality expresses itself, then in terms of a “picture,” one would expect it to be very uniform, with the variations occurring only on a very fine level. Look at the paragraphs on this page — they are just blocks of text. You can’t see a picture in them. When I look at a large paragraph without my glasses, its appearance is that of a mottled uniformity, rather like the pictures of CMB we see, such as this one, which also show a kind of mottled appearance:
It is only if you look at a page of text with a resolution sufficient to see the fine detail, and the knowledge needed to decipher it, that you can see it is rich in information. Such could be the case with the “Old Energy” (CMB) that we see. So far we just see a mottled uniformity in it.
If the “Old Energy” does turn out to be “code,” though, (like the genetic code DNA stores) and we can one day learn to “read” and “write” this code, in what wonderful ways might we be able to bend reality to our bidding? For instance, we may, one day be able to draw energy out of the universe for human use, in a cheap, plentiful, safe and environmentally friendly way.
Now we are like end users of a computer program, who can only learn the rules of the program, and figure out how to use it to our advantage. Then we will be like computer programmers, and be able to change the way the universe works whenever we wish to. This could, of course, be fraught with many dangers, including upsetting the stability of the universe, so it would require great wisdom to use it to advantage. We might also expect to find, however, that much of the most fundamental code is “locked” so we can't undermine the stability of the universe.
An Explanation for the “Non-thermal Effects” of Microwaves
If the “code” for how the organized complexity of our universe unfolds is written in microwaves, as this theory suggests, then it would be possible that human-made microwaves, such as those used for microwave ovens, cell phones and wireless internet, could interfere with this coding and alter the structure and function of things in the material world. Living things would be the most likely to be affected over short periods, as their structure is so complex and they are continuously changing over short periods of time as they function. Living things would need to scan much more information from the coding microwaves than non-living things, so they would have to have better "antennas" to pick up the signal. And since the CMB "coding signals" are trillions of times less strong than cell phone signals, living cells would need to have exquisitely sensitive antennas, which, as at turns out, they do have. DNA molecules in cells are excellent conductors of electricity, due to their hydrogen-bonded backbone - so good that biological nanotechnology uses them as their conductor of choice. What makes DNA molecules even better antennas, though, is that they are folded into tiny balls in a fractal pattern where there are folds upon folds upon folds in the same pattern. This makes them "fractal antennas" that are known to be equisitely sensitive because their length is maximized while their size is minimized. If DNA molecules are, indeed, extremely sensitive antennas, then it is easy to see how hugely more intense microwaves from cell phones and wireless internet, etc., could drown out the intended message, and even overlay it with a different, disruptive message. Research has shown that cell phone frequency, and levels, of pulsed microwaves cause DNA damage and random mutations during the replication process when cells divide. This means it is quite possible that the faint "coding microwaves" could code for correct transcription of the DNA, activate genes in a planned way, and even code for beneficial mutations that feed the evolution of organized complexity in living things.
The disruption of the function of living things by artificial microwaves might only, however, be expected to take place if the frequency of the artificial source corresponds to one of the frequencies nature uses to code for the function of living things, if the intensity of the artificial microwaves is sufficient to drown out the life signal (which it would certainly be if there is any usable signal), and if the artificial microwaves are present enough of the time that the life signals could not properly code for the needed life changes in the remaining time.
To help you understand the concept of this possibly informationally disruptive action of artificial microwaves, let me say it is very similar to how Captain Kirk and his officers destroyed the enemy fleet in the movie Startrek Beyond. They sent out a VHF radio signal at the frequency they knew would disrupt and wash out the very tight communications between the myriad ships of the enemy fleet. Their VHF signal didn’t directly do any damage to the enemy ships, it just disrupted their essential communications, likened to those between bees in a hive, and that in turn led to the destruction of the fleet as the ships lost control and crashed into each other.
In the light of the possibility that artificial microwaves could be informationally destructive to life in this way, it is interesting to note that “non-thermal” biological effects of microwaves, that can’t be explained by their energy content, have been well documented. For instance, people have got brain cancers in the parts of their brains near where they held their cell phones, and quite a few young women have got breast cancers exactly where they tucked their cells phones into their bras to store them. These cannot have been caused by the heat produced by the microwaves cell phones transmit, as the amount of heat produced is too small. A cell phone’s microwave transmissions only produce about one tenth of the heat on our head that comes from the sun shining on our head. On average, a cell phone radiates less than 100 mW during a conversation, only about one hundredth the amount of energy radiated by a flashlight bulb. That is why these effects are called “non-thermal” effects. Even quite large amounts of infra-red heat radiation cause no harm to living things, and microwaves are similarly non-ionizing and even less energetic, so it is highly unlikely that the small amounts of microwaves from cell phones could be directly damaging to living things because of the energy they carry. Microwaves, like all EMR, can however, in addition to energy, also carry information, and could do damage indirectly by interfering with and disrupting the reception of information living things need, whether this be an exchange of information between different parts of an organism, or the transmission to it of its blueprint for life as suggested by this theory. Hopefully, the underlying mechanism for non-thermal biological effects of microwaves and other EMR, presented here, will lead to a greater acceptance that there really could be non-themal, informational, effects of such radiation that can cause health problems.
So, our use of artifical microwaves and other EMR is one area where we may be, albeit unwittingly, destructively deprogramming the physical world, perhaps to an extent well beyond what we are aware of. It follows from this that research into what frequencies and durations of microwaves and other radio waves cause non-thermal effects on living things, and what frequencies appear to have no non-thermal effects, could help make our use of microwaves and radio frequency signals for communication much safer. In the meanwhile it would make excellent sense to "play it safe" by minimizing our exposure to artificial microwaves and other EMR associated with health risks such as the ELF 60 Hz radiation caused by our electric power grid. In his excellent book on the dangers of cell phones, WiFi and other artificial EMR, Overpowered, Martin Blank calls this the "Precautionary Principle."
A Mechanism to Explain Organized Complexity in the Universe
John Barrow, in his book Theories of Everything, says, “The great unanswered question is whether there exists some undiscovered organizing principle which complements the known laws of Nature and dictates the overall evolution of the universe.” The scanning of the Old Energy blueprint this theory proposes could just turn out to be such an “organizing principle,” specifying the pattern for development of organized complexity in the universe in the face of the otherwise continually increasing disorder of entropy. Barrow goes on to say that the discovery of an organizing principle that specifies how the universe evolves, “…would be profoundly interesting because the universe appears to be far more orderly than we have any right to expect.” The existence of an ever evolving, continuously scanned blueprint, picked up by DNA fractal antennas in living things, would certainly explain this puzzling excess of order in the universe.
Stationary Energy Theory also answers a number of other questions that physics has previously been unable to answer. These include, fairly obviously, “What was before the Big Bang?” (The Universal Energy Field), “What is the universe expanding into?” (The Universal Energy Field), and “Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?” (gravity turns negative at great distances). It also answers the questions, “Where did the materials that fed the Big Bang come from?” “Why are there voids between superclusters of galaxies?” “How do black holes form considering it has now been shown that they can't form as a result of stellar collapse?” and has the scope to explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for life to exist, and how quantum entanglement works. You will, however, have to read the additional series of articles, referenced at the end of this article, to find out about these.
Stationary Energy Theory suggests that intelligent coding specifies, moment by moment, how the organized complexity of the universe unfolds. Whether this is an inanimate, impersonal intelligence, or whether there is a cosmic consciousness behind it that our consciousnesses are linked to, is something this theory is neutral about. This theory does, however, have the scope to fit in perfectly with
Articles on Further Details of the Stationary Energy Theory
Author: Mark J. Mason
The first publication of this complete theory was on July 6, 2011
Latest revision of the presentation: May 21, 2018
Feedback and offers of collaboration will be welcomed and seriously considered.
Copyright © 2011-2018, Mark J. Mason
Click here for the home page of my book, In Search of the Loving God, which includes three complete chapters from the book: