Universal Field Cosmology
I would like to present a new “quantum gravity” theory of the structure of the Universe that leads to simple derivations of the Lorentz Transformation for time and E = mc² and an explanation of gravity and inertia in terms of the interaction of fundamental particles. The theory also explains some other previously puzzling things about the Universe, including what it is in space that is “bent” by massive objects to create gravitational fields, and how this bending then creates the force of gravity. It goes on to predict that gravity becomes a repulsive force at great distance, explaining why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating without needing to propose the existence of “dark energy.” This theory’s formula for gravity gives a value for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe that is close to what astronomers have measured. The theory also explains the anomalies in galactic rotation that “dark matter” has been inferred from, without the need for dark matter. It does this in terms of a prediction of the theory about how gravitation is affected around the supermassive black holes that are at the center of most galaxies.
In addition, this theory explains how the fast solar wind gets its energy, and why areas of the Universe populated by superclusters of galaxies have a “flat” geometry while on a larger scale it is curved, and suggests a function for Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that explains the puzzling level of organization and complexity in the universe.
This theory achieves these things by assuming that the electromagnetic energy of the universe is all a part of a “stationary” universal field field and that all matter is moving at the speed of light, then showing through a simple thought experiment that an absolute frame of reference for velocity is compatible with an isotropic Universe, and following the possibilities these two things open up. Because this is a new way of looking at the universe, it does appear to open up many new possibilities in Physics.
Mark J. Mason (email@example.com)
A .pdf version of this web page in two columns, suitable for reading off-line or printing out to read, is available here: Universal Field Cosmology PDF.
A much shorter introduction to this theory is available here: UFC, Short Introduction.
This theory is based on the results of many experiments, starting with the Michelson-Morley Experiment, that show that the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same (=c) regardless of the relative speed of the observer and the source. It also assumes the equivalence of mass and energy that the nuclear industry is based on — that matter and electromagnetic energy are two different forms of the same thing.
Another way of stating the observed constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum and the equivalence of mass and energy is to say that electromagnetic energy and matter are two different “quantum” states of the same thing, where one is always moving at the speed of light relative to the other. To simplify this we will choose a frame of reference where one is always at rest and the other is always moving at the speed of light, and consider these two “quantum” states.
Matter is clearly not always at rest, as it is often moving with respect to other matter, and it would be confusing to try to portray it that way. Because of this, I will consider what follows from choosing a frame of reference where electromagnetic energy is always “at rest” and matter is always traveling at the speed of light. From this perspective, the matter/energy of the Universe will always be in one of these two “quantum” states (or rapidly transitioning between them), and will never be observed somewhere in-between them. Because of this, this theory will propose that the apparent reduction of the speed of light in transparent media, such as air and glass, is because it is absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the media, so that it is effectively “stopped” part of the time, but when it is moving it is exactly at the speed of light.
This way of looking at matter and energy would imply 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. Interestingly, there is a movement we can detect, even when we are apparently at rest, and that is our movement through time. So let’s assume that what we sense as a movement through time, when we are “at rest,” is us moving through the electromagnetic energy field of the Universe at the speed of light, “c,” and look at what this implies.
Seeing the electromagnetic energy of the universe as stationary and matter as always moving at the speed of light, partly through space and partly through time, turns our view of the universe upside down, quite literally, and opens up huge vistas of possibilities in physics, leading to explanations of many previously unexplained aspects of the universe. Simply put, the Universe makes a lot more sense when viewed this way.
First let's look at what this way of looking at matter and energy implies for the speed of passing of time when we are moving through space with a speed “v” (with respect to a point that is “at rest,” that I’ll define soon).
A thought experiment about frames of reference
Let’s call our speed of travel through time “T”. Our speed of travel through time when we are “at rest” compared to a particular energy source, “T0” is, according to this theory, as just stated, equal to the speed of light, so:
T0 = c . . . . . . . . . . (1)
If the direction of travel through time could be specified in the three space dimensions, and we were traveling with a velocity “v” in the same direction as the light from a light source, then the constancy of the speed of light would require that our speed of travel through time plus our speed of travel through space add up to the speed of light. We can express this as: T + v = c or, subtracting v from each side of the equation:
T = c – v . . . . . . . . . (2)
From Figure 1 you can see that if “v” increases, T must decrease, as c always stays the same (you can adjust the lengths of the T and v arrows but they must always add up to the length of the c arrow). In other words, our speed of travel through time would slow down by exactly the same amount as our speed of travel through space increases, since c must remain constant. But if we turned around and traveled in the opposite direction at a speed “v” then you can see from Figure 2 that as our speed through space, “v”, increases, our speed of travel through time, T, would also have to increase to keep c constant. We can express this as: T – v = c or, adding v to each side of the equation:
T = c + v . . . . . . . . . (3)
So our speed of travel through time, and hence our perception and measurement of how fast time passes, would decrease as we speed up in one direction, but would increase as we speed up when going in the opposite direction! Not only has this never been observed, but it is also a long-standing assumption in scientific theories that the Universe is “isotropic,” meaning that the laws of science operate in the same way regardless of direction in space. Fortunately, though, there is one possible solution that overcomes this problem and is consistent with an isotropic Universe.
If the direction of travel through time were perpendicular to all three space dimensions, then it would have no component in any of the space dimensions to cause the speed of light or the speed of passing of time to depend on the direction in which we are moving. For this to be the case, our experience of time passing must be because of our movement through a fourth dimension perpendicular to all three space dimensions — the “time dimension.” This movement must, for a given observer, pass through a single “point in space,” since there can be no component of the movement in any of the three space dimensions. This is the point that is “at rest” that I mentioned earlier. We will consider later what the nature of these “points in space” is, where this happens. For now, though, I will just observe that these “points in space” form a rest frame that is, in a very real way, absolutely at rest, and that this rest frame is a requirement of this theory.
The Lorentz Transformation for time intervals, the “Time Dilation Equation,” follows from this thought experiment:
In this situation, T + v = c (Equation 2) must be a vector addition, as shown in Figure 3, where the direction of travel through time at speed T is always at right angles to our direction of travel through space at speed v, regardless of the direction we are traveling through space.
To determine how the rate at which time passes for us, “T”, varies with our speed of travel through space, ”v”, for this isotropic solution, we can apply Pythagoras’ Theorem to Figure 3 to get:
T² + v² = c² . . . . . . . . . (4)
Subtracting v² from each side, we get:
T² = c² - v²
Multiplying both numerator and denominator of the terms on the right side by c² we get:
T² = c².c²/c² - c².v²/c²
Taking the common factor of c² out of both terms on the right we get:
T² = c²(1 - v²/c²)
And taking the square root of each side (note: x½ is a way of writing the square root of x), we get:
T = c(1 - v²/c²)½ . . . . . . . . (5)
From Equation 1, though, we know that T0 = c, so:
T = T0(1 - v²/c²)½ . . . . . . . . (6)
This equation shows how, according to this theory, the speed at which an object travels through time, “T”, will slow down, as its speed through space, “v”, increases. Already it is a form of the Lorentz transformation for time, but it is not yet in its most usual form, which is in terms of the duration of an interval of time “t” (such as a second, or an hour). As the speed of passing of time decreases (as time passes more slowly), the duration of each second (or hour) will increase (each hour will last longer). In other words there is a reciprocal relationship between them, where:
T = 1/t . . . . . . . . . (7)
Substituting 1/t for T, and 1/t0 for T0 into (6) we get:
1/t = (1/t0)(1 - v²/c²)½
If two mathematical expressions are equal then their reciprocals are also equal, so we can invert both sides of the equation to get:
t = t0/(1 - v²/c²)½ . . . . . . . . (8)
where t0 is the duration of a given time interval at rest (say one second), and t is the duration of that time interval when traveling at a speed of v compared to the “point in space” the observer is occupying, referred to earlier. This is the most recognizable form of the Lorentz transformation for a time interval. Sometimes it is also written:
t = γt0 . . . . . . . . . . (9)
where γ = 1/(1 - v²/c²)½ , the “Lorentz factor.”
The fact that this Universal Field model of the Universe can be used to derive the formula for the time dilation effect, that many experiments have shown to exist, is a reality check the theory passes, and lays a foundation the theory can build upon.
Implications of this “Universal Field Cosmology” Model of our Universe
To recapitulate, this theory proposes that the matter of the Universe is always traveling at the speed of light with respect to the electromagnetic energy of the Universe, which is seen as being in a reference frame that is always stationary. I will call this energy the “Universal Energy Field.” When the speeds of material objects through space are slow, most of their speed-of-light movement is through a fourth, time, dimension, which is perpendicular to the three space dimensions. This movement through the time dimension gives rise to our perception of time passing.
If this Universe started at a point, or was once very small, this movement of matter along the time dimension would have to be in a direction outward from the center, and would produce a Universe in the form of, or very close to that of, a four dimensional sphere, expanding at the speed of light, or very close to it, along all possible radii of the sphere, from the center to the “surface.” The “surface” of this sphere is our three dimensional Universe, which is also expanding. The rate of this expansion is linked to the radial expansion, so that two points on this sphere one radian (one radius distance) apart will be moving away from each other at the speed of light. It is expanding like the surface of balloon expands when it is being blown up. As a result, this theory is in accord with the observations of astronomy that show that the most distant observable galaxies are moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
If the speed of light has always been the same, since the Big Bang, this theory requires the radius of the Universe in light years to be equal to the age of the Universe in years, which runs counter to current astronomical observations that suggest the radius of the Universe in light years is over three times its age in years.
This theory, however, does not require that the speed of light has always been the same since the Big Bang — it just says that, because the apparent speed of light is due to matter expanding through the “stationary” Universal Energy Field of the Universe, the speed of light at a given point in time is equal to the speed of the expansion of the Universe at that time. So, rather than requiring an equal age and radius, this theory suggests that if the radius is larger in (our current) light years than its age in years, it is because the speed of the expansion of the Universe, and the speed of light, were greater in the past than they are now.
And it is not unreasonable to suppose that the speed of expansion of the Universe would have been greater just after the Big Bang, and that it subsequently slowed down to its current speed.
While no point on a sphere is special compared to any other point, it is possible to specify a grid showing how each point is related to every other point, in terms of angles subtended to the center of the sphere. We do this with latitude and longitude on the Earth.
If you start with any one radius line, going from the center of the sphere to the surface, then the point at which this radius line intersects with the surface can be specified as a “stationary point” on the surface of the sphere, and a grid can be constructed, in terms of angles from a line drawn through this point, and angles subtended from the center of the sphere from this point.
Any other point on this grid is then also a “stationary point” where another radius from the center of the sphere intersects with the surface. If a train or a ship is traveling along the surface of this sphere, one can specify its speed relative to the point on the ground directly below it, which is a fixed point on the latitude and longitude grid. Each point on the grid is a “stationary point,” and it is valid to talk about how fast an object is moving with respect to that point. And this would still be true if the Earth were a gradually expanding sphere. If the sphere is expanding, though, each “stationary point” (grid point) will be moving away from every other “stationary point,” as these points are only “fixed” in relation to each other in an angular way.
The Universal Field Cosmology model of the Universe is analogous to such a gradually expanding Earth, and has to be for the Universe to be isotropic. Any point at which an object’s (or observer’s) passage through time intersects with the “surface” of the four dimensional sphere of our Universe (the current moment for that observer) is a “stationary point” the object’s speed can be measured against. These lines along which time passes are, by definition, radius lines of the Universe, that originate at its center and intersect the four-dimensional sphere perpendicular to all three space dimensions at every such “stationary point”. And, as we established earlier, in order for the Universe to be isotropic, these lines along which time passes must intersect our three dimensions of space at a “single point.” Not only can the speed of an object be measured with respect to such a “stationary point” as we have described (which if it were on the Earth would be the point “directly below it”), but, it is also a consequence of this model of the Universe that the speed, “v”, used to calculate how much time is slowed down for a moving object (to keep the speed of light always constant), is the speed relative to such a “stationary point.” These “stationary points” are the “points in space” we referred to earlier.
Some ways in which the Universal Field Cosmology Model fits in with known facts about the Universe, and explains some previously inexplicable ones.
Absence of the twins paradox
One happy consequence of the somewhat “absolute” way of measuring speed that is required for calculating time dilation in this model of the Universe is that the “Twins Paradox” that plagues special and general relativity, and has never been explained in a convincing way, doesn’t even arise. The twin who accelerates off to a distant star (or the muon in a particle accelerator) after a while closely approaches the speed of light as measured against the “stationary points” he (or it) passes. Time passes more slowly for the fast traveling twin (or muon) according the Lorentz transformation for time intervals (Equation 8, above). The same is true for the return journey of the traveling twin (and the muon heading back around the circular path of the particle accelerator). Again he is traveling close to the speed of light with respect to the “stationary points” he passes through, so time again slows down for him. Meanwhile, the other twin on Earth (or the scientist observing the muon) has continued to travel at the same very low speeds (compared to the speed of light) that he always has done in relation to the “stationary points” he is passing by, so time continues to travel at the normal rate for him on Earth, that includes little or no time dilation. On return, the traveling twin’s clock will show much less time has passed for him than for his brother.
Note that this theory doesn’t suggest the Earth is a “stationary point,” only that it, like most of the matter of the Universe, is traveling at a very tiny fraction of the speed of light compared to the “stationary points” it is passing through, so is subject to only extremely tiny amounts of time dilation. Even if the highly unlikely possibility were true that the Earth, along with the sun and our galaxy, had the very large speed with respect to the grid of “stationary points” of say 42,000 km/second, so that we had a Lorentz factor of 1.01 (1% of time dilation compared with some other place in place in the Universe), we would just experience it as being normal, anyway.
Our actual speed with respect to “stationary points” is likely to be much smaller than that. For instance, the solar system moves at a speed of about 400 km/s with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) rest frame (the same as the grid of “stationary points” of this theory?). The Lorentz factor of this speed, though, is only: 1.00000089 (which would cause about one second of time dilation each two weeks).
An Easy Derivation of E = mc2
According to this theory, all matter is moving at the speed of light with respect to the “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 is given by the equation: E = ½mv², it follows that the amount of kinetic energy held by a piece of matter of mass “m”, that would be released if it made the quantum transition to being electromagnetic radiation, which is stationary with respect to this frame, would be:
E = ½mc² . . . . . . . . . (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 energy can be released? The obvious, and only apparent, way would be if it collided with another particle of the same mass, traveling in the opposite direction through 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 these particles would be traveling at twice the speed of light relative to us, backward through time, and would be extremely tiny, we would not be aware of them, except when they make these collisions. 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 be:
E = ½mc² + ½mc²
And adding the two terms on the right, we get:
E = mc² . . . . . . . . . (11)
The existence of “backward through time particles” (BTTPs) in this way allows the release of the kinetic energy held in matter, and explains why the energy released is mc² not ½mc². As we shall see, the existence of BTTPs also explains many other things about the Universe, including gravity and inertia.
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 with a force that is electrical and magnetic in nature. As a result, the kinetic energy would be absorbed into an electromagnetic wave structure of alternating electrical and magnetic fields as the particles rapidly slow down to zero speed and become photons. This explains why electromagnetic energy has a wave nature as well as a particle nature.
Basic Particles of Matter
In these energy releasing collisions, 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. Then the simultaneous collisions of multiple particles (possibly in clusters) would lead to the release of higher energy photons. If we call the energy in the least energetic possible photon Emin, then the mass of this particle, which I will call the “basic particle” (BP) would be:
mbp = Emin/c² . . . . . . . . . (12)
The least energetic electromagnetic radiation (EMR) known appears to be ultra low frequency radio waves with a frequency of about 1 mHz (0.001 Hz). The Planck-Einstein Equation, E = hf, gives the energy of photons emitted at a particular frequency, “f,” where “h” is Planck’s Constant (6.62 x 10-34 Joules.s). For this least energetic photon, with a frequency of 0.001 Hz:
Emin = hf = 6.62 x 10-34 x 0.001 = 6.62 x 10-37 Joules . . . . (13)
Substituting this in (12) we get the mass of a basic particle:
mbp = Emin/c² = 6.62 x 10-37 J/(3 x 108 m/s)2 = 6.62 x 10-37/ (9 x 1016) = 0.7 x 10-53 kg
So, to the nearest order of magnitude the mass of a “basic particle” is:
mbp = 10-53 kg . . . . . . . . (14)
If EMR with a frequency less than 0.001Hz is discovered, this mass would have to be lowered further to take account of it, but it is a useful figure to work with.
Since the mass of an electron is about 10-30 kg (9.1 x 10-31 kg), this means an electron would be made up of about 1023 “basic particles.”
These “basic particles” (BPs) would presumably 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 in various ways to form the various fundamental particles of Nature, explain the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces of Quantum Theory. Basic particles could be one and the same as the “string” loops that superstring theory proposes, or they could be linked together like strings of pearls to produce these strings. I propose, though, that when they are traveling backward through time (when they are 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. 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. Since excited atoms produce EMR equally well wherever they are in space, it is clear that these particles traveling backward through time must either be aligned by some common causality with matter in our Universe, or be present in close to an equal density everywhere in their domain.
This explains how photons of EMR are created at a source, and carry away an amount of mass from the source equal to E/c2. Light waves in the visible spectrum have a frequency of about 1015 Hz, which would require about 1018 BPs within an electron to switch quantum states to the Universal Energy Field to become one photon of light. This is just one particle in 100,000 within an electron, which would reduce the mass of the electron by 0.001%.
This theory thus predicts that electrons in higher (more energetic) orbitals would weigh slightly more than those in lower orbitals, in proportion to the energy of the photon emitted when the electron moves between the orbitals. This tiny weight loss would presumably not adversely affect the function of the electron, and may even be tied in with its function. (For a detailed explanation of how the interaction of Basic Particles and BTTPs is in accord with Quantum Theory, please see Appendix A.)
In opaque or semi-opaque media, light photons are absorbed and re-emitted by atoms as described by Quantum Theory. The re-emitted photon is not usually of the same energy or propagated in the same direction. As mentioned earlier, this theory proposes that the apparent reduction of the speed of light in transparent media, such as air or glass, is due to photons being effectively “stationary” for a small amount of time as they are being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the media. This would allow the photons, while they are moving, to be moving at exactly the speed of light. In the case of transparent media, however, the process of absorption and re-emission would have to be such that most of the re-emitted photons would be of the same energy and direction of propagation as the absorbed photons. This absorption and re-emission is required by this theory because, under it, matter/energy must be in one or other of its quantum states (stationary or moving at the speed of light) and not somewhere in-between. Structures of matter are, according this theory, transparent to particular frequencies when the energy of those frequencies correspond to energy transitions within electrons that cause absorbed photons to be rapidly re-emitted in the same direction and with the same frequency. Consequently, this theory predicts that this kind of very rapid absorption and re-emission takes place in transparent media, and that, with the right experiment, it may be possible to verify that it is happening.
How BTTPs Explain Gravity
I mentioned in the last section that if two opposing “basic particles,” one a part of a piece of matter in our Universe (a BP), and one a BTTP, traveling backward in time, are not on a direct collision course they will repel each other and pass by each other. Let’s look what happens in this situation if there are two objects, of mass m1 and m2 in our Universe (going forward in time) each of which consists of a number of “basic particles” bonded to each other, so that the bonding forces cancel each other out, or are forces of such close range that there is no significant attraction or repulsion between m1 and m2 at the distance they are apart.
The attractive strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces between basic particles (BPs) hold together the structures of matter, and as a result do, in fact, 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.
Based on this, let’s look at what happens when two basic particles traveling backward in time (BTTPs), p1 and p2, are on a collision course with m1 and m2.
If m2 were not there, p1 could collide with a basic particle in m1, and a photon of energy would be produced. But because of the presence of m2, p1 is repelled, be it ever so slightly, by m2, and it will shift direction slightly, and start to be repelled by m1 as well, in a direction perpendicular to its backward travel through time, and pass m1 on the side away from m2. p2 will likewise pass m2 on the side away from m1. As they are passing, p1 will repel m1, and since it is closer to it than p2 is, p1’s repulsion of m1 toward m2 will be greater than p2’s repulsion in the opposite direction. So there will be a net force pushing m1 toward m2. Likewise there will be a net force pushing m2 toward m1. Figure 6 illustrates this:
The more particles are involved, the stronger the force will be, but since there is close to an equal density everywhere of the particles traveling backward in time (or, as previously discussed, they have a common causality with forward through time particles of matter), the strength of the attraction will be proportional to the mass of m1 and the mass of m2, and be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the particles in most (but not all) situations found in our Universe. (For a discussion of why the attractive force in this situation should depend on the inverse square of the distance between the particles, but the angles of deflection of BTTPs should vary with the simple inverse of the distance from the objects that are repelling them, see Appendix B.)
In this case, the force attracting pieces of matter of mass m1 and m2 at distance “d” from each other could be expressed as:
F = IGm1m2/d² . . . . . . . . (15)
This force would be an attractive force between objects with mass in our Universe. It is, of course, the force of gravity, and G is the “universal” constant of gravity. “I” is a Gravitational Intensity Factor I have introduced, which in most usual situations = 1.
How, according to this theory, gravity should work at very great distances that are a significant fraction of radius of the Universe
I mentioned in the last section that the inverse square law attraction of gravity may not apply in all situations in the Universe. One situation where this theory suggests it should break down is over very large distances that are a significant fraction of the radius of the Universe.
Looking at Figures 5 and 6 again, the presence of m2 repels p1 slightly so that it passes m1 on the side away from m2, causing p1 to repel m1 and push it toward m2, creating (one half of) the attractive gravitational force between m1 and m2. As the distance between m1 and m2 increases, the angle of deflection of p1 is going to reduce, until at very great distances it will be very tiny. At small distances the directions of movement of m1 and m2 are effectively parallel, but at very great distances, that are a significant fraction of the radius of the Universe, the direction of movement of m1 and m2 will cease being parallel, due to the curvature of the three dimensional “surface” of our four dimensional spherical Universe. Instead they will “splay” outward. When this angle of splay becomes larger than the tiny deflection caused by m2, p1 will repel and be repelled by m1, and pass m1 on the side toward m2, and continue to repel it away from m2. Thus, at these huge distances, gravity should, according to the Universal Field Theory of Cosmology, become a repulsive force, rather than an attractive force. In this situation, “I” in Equation 15, above, becomes negative. In general, the Universal Field Cosmology says the force of gravity is described by Equation 15, where I is not always equal to one, but reduces in value, then turns negative, at great distances (and in another important situation described below). Figure 7, below, illustrates this situation where gravitation becomes a repulsive force.
For tiny pieces of matter, such as hydrogen molecules, isolated from other gravitational fields (or in orbit or free fall), the deflection of p1 by m2 would be extremely tiny, even at relatively short distances. This could mean that the “splay” in the direction of movement of the hydrogen atoms could become greater than the repulsive deflection of the BTTPs when they are only a tiny fraction of a meter apart, causing the gravitational force between them to become one of repulsion, rather than attraction, when they are further apart than this critical distance. This is the other situation where this theory suggests the inverse square law attraction of gravity should break down, and “I” (in Equation 15) would become less than one then turn negative. This would help explain why there are still large numbers of isolated atoms and molecules of matter floating around in space, especially intergalactic space, that haven’t been attracted to each other to form stars.
These two situations where gravity is a repulsive force would also explain why gravity isn’t slowing down the expansion of the Universe, as one would otherwise expect it to do. The evidence is that the speed of expansion of the Universe is currently actually increasing. Gravity turning into a repulsive force at very great distances, and at even quite small distances for very tiny particles, as this theory suggests, could certainly explain the accelerating expansion of the Universe, and do so much more elegantly than by proposing the existence of vast quantities of undetected “dark energy” that repels matter and itself rather than attracting it. Later, once we have derived a formula for the force of this repulsive gravity, we will show it can also fairly accurately account for the observed rate of acceleration of the expansion of the Universe.
One could, if one wished to, say that the BTTPs are the “dark energy.” They certainly have the required quality of dark energy of repelling matter. The function of BTTPs, though, goes far beyond that proposed for dark energy, so I believe it would be confusing and misleading to equate them in any more than a superficial way.
We should note here that the expansion of the Universe has not always been accelerating. For the radius of the Universe to be over three times greater in light years than its age in years, the Universe must have had an average speed of expansion over its lifetime of over three times its current speed. The evidence suggests that the Universe has been expanding for about the last five billion years, just over one third of its age. This means that the speed of expansion of the Universe must have started off, after the big bang, many times faster than it now is, and have slowed down for about nine billion years, after which its speed of expansion began to increase again.
The current five billion year long acceleration of the speed of expansion could be the first major return oscillation after an initial nine billion year slow down. Figure 8, below, illustrates this.
A body at rest or in uniform motion will have an equal number of backward-through-time particles (BTTPs) being deviated on all sides of it, so there will be no net force on it. But as soon as there is an attempt to change its speed, there will be more repulsion from the BTTPs against the direction of the acceleration, and less repulsion from the BTTPs in the direction of the attempted acceleration, and this will cause a net force to resist the acceleration, that works in just the same way as the deflection of BTTPs causes gravitational force. Since it operates cumulatively on all the “basic particles” in the object, this net force will be in proportion to its mass. This is, I suggest, the reason why bodies have inertia and momentum, and that the force needed to accelerate a body is proportional to its mass (m) and to the acceleration applied (a), as is described by Newton’s formula for force: F = ma
A Spinning body also has angular momentum for the same reason, and resists changing the direction in which its axis of rotation points because it would disrupt the flow of BTTPs past the spinning body, causing a great acceleration with even a small change in direction of the axis of rotation, because of the high speed of rotation. It should be noted that the gyroscopic effect of a spinning body will tend to keep its axis of rotation aligned at a constant angle to the direction of BTTPs flowing past it, rather than with a particular direction in space, though these are usually very close to being the same, because, as we will see later, the angle of deflection of BTTPs around even quite large objects like the Earth is quite tiny.
Raw Materials to feed the Big Bang
Where are these BTTPs traveling backward in time going? Since they are traveling back in time at the same speed we are traveling forward in time, and they are, as we pass them, at the same distance out from the center of our four-dimensional spherical Universe as we are, they are going to get to the very center, where the Big Bang occurred, at the exact time when the Big Bang occurred. So these particles, presumably undifferentiated and spread uniformly across space, are traveling back in time to provide the material to feed the Big Bang, after which, because of the Big Bang, it will become the matter that will differentiate into the galaxies, stars and planets of our Universe.
The Dual Nature of Matter
We just mentioned that BTTPs are traveling backward in time at the same speed as the BPs in matter they are now “passing” are traveling forward in time, and that this means they will get to the center of the Universe at the exact time of the Big Bang, when the BPs they are now “passing” left it. It follows from this that at every time between the Big Bang and now, and at every time in the future, the same BTTP is either “passing” or colliding with the same BP of matter (or one nearby). This seems like a paradox until one takes account of the fact that everything is happening “backward” for the BTTPs. It would seem that BPs are, in a way, “paired up” with BTTPs. They were originally created from EMR in pairs, as previously described in the section on how electrons absorb EMR. This process creates an equal number of BPs going forward in time at the speed of light, to add to the electron’s mass, and BTTPs going backward in time at the speed of light in their domain. So after the big bang, when energy made the quantum shift to being matter, matter was created in BP-BTTP pairs that then stayed approximately together, perhaps wandering off slightly, perpetually passing each other until conditions were right for them to collide and jump to the energy quantum state again, where they become part of the Universal Energy Field, and manifest as EMR. So it seems like matter has a dual nature, consisting of perpetual pairs of “basic particles” and “backward through time particles.” Note, though, that this pairing doesn’t necessarily mean BTTPs are formed into structures like matter — the mechanisms of this theory suggest they are probably spread out evenly over their domain. This pairing could, however, provide the scope needed to explain the “entanglement” of particles in the domain of matter, noted in quantum mechanics, whereby once close particles seem to be causally connected even when separated by great distances. The BTTP pairs of the two particles of matter could remain in close contact, and continue to influence their BP “partners” through a mechanism proposed in a later section about a possible role of cosmic background radiation.
The Nature of EMR
It is very hard to imagine a four-dimensional sphere. The best we can do is imagine a three dimensional sphere, and try to extrapolate from there. The 3-D sphere, though, has its radius as well as its surface in the three space dimensions. The fact that the radii of our 4-D Universe are all in the time dimension, and passing through it gives rise to our sense of time, limits the usefulness of the 3-D sphere analogy.
Whichever direction we look in space we are looking back in time because of the finite speed of light which is also equal to our speed of travel through time. This is why, although EMR is “stationary,” fixed in the Universal Energy Field, as we race past it at the speed of light in the time dimension as our Universe expands, we see it coming at us from a direction in space, and it could be any direction in space. This is because every direction in space is backward in time. If we see a star that is eight light years away, we are looking back eight years in time. So, although we can’t imagine it, we are traveling through time toward every direction in space. EMR in every direction in space is stationary, but appears to be moving toward us with the speed of light, because we are moving toward it at the speed of light through time (or though space and time if we are moving relative to the grid of “stationary points” in space).
Looking at it in another way, there is a kind of perpendicularity to EMR, because while we are moving past it very largely in the time dimension, it appears to be coming at us in a direction perpendicular to the time dimension, from a particular direction in the three space dimensions. But then, perpendicularity is a quality of EMR — it has long been known to have three dimensions of perpendicularity. EMR consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, which are perpendicular to each other, and to its direction of propagation. It could well be that oscillating electric and magnetic fields are the result of the “imprinting” of the propagation of EMR on to the space dimensions which are all also perpendicular to the direction through time in which we are passing the “stationary” energy. That would just be adding a fourth dimension of perpendicularity to EMR, which is consistent with fact that EMR can be mathematically described as a “four-vector.”
Gravitational Red Shift and the Speed of the Fast Solar Wind
If you refer back to Figures 5 and 6, and the accompanying explanations about how this theory says gravity works, you will recall that a “backward through time particle” (BTTP), that would otherwise be on a straight-on collision course with a “basic particle” (BP) within an object, is slightly deflected by the presence of other matter nearby in a direction away from that other matter, which then creates a gravitational force by its repulsion of the BPs in the object it is near, pushing it toward the other matter.
It follows from this deflection of BTTPs that if the two particles are to collide in a gravitational field then the BTTP would need to be, after its deflection, arriving at the collision at a slight angle to the direction in which the piece of matter is moving forward through time. Since the deflection of the BTTP is proportional to the mass of the other nearby matter, and inversely proportional to its distance, the larger the gravitational field the piece of matter is in, the larger the angle of approach of the BTTP will be at the point of collision.
When this non-straight-on collision occurs, though, the net velocity of particles after colliding cannot be zero, as is required for them to become EMR in the Universal Energy Field. What could happen, though, and this theory predicts does happen, is that some of the particles remain as matter and carry away the net kinetic energy, and others effectively collide head on and become a part of the Universal Energy Field.
Let’s consider a case where a collision, when straight on, would involve 100 BPs directly colliding with 100 BTTPs, producing a photon of EMR with energy Es. If the collision were at a slight angle, such that one percent of the total energy needed to be carried off as kinetic energy, then one BP and one BTTP could carry off this energy as kinetic energy, leaving 99 BPs to collide head on with 99 BTTPs and make the quantum jump to the Energy Field. The quantum of EMR produced would then have 99/100 as much energy as Es. Its energy, Ea, would be: Ea = 0.99Es. Since the energy carried by EMR is proportional to its frequency, fa = 0.99fs. In other words, in this gravitational field, there would be a 1% red shift in radiation emitted, and this 1% of lost energy would be carried away by the particles as kinetic energy, half in our Universe by the piece of matter containing the BP and half by the BTTP in the backward through time domain it occupies. This can be illustrated as follows:
The reverse situation, with the same red shift result, occurs when photons are absorbed (creating absorption spectra lines) in a gravitational field. Since the BTTPs and the BPs matter that are created need to end up traveling in exactly opposite directions through time to satisfy the conservation of momentum, but the gravity of the sun will deflect the BTTP, the particles have to launch off at an angle to each other rather than in directly opposite directions. This is achieved with the help of an incoming particle (perhaps attracted by the gravitational field) which imparts the required KE and mass to the particles (say 1%), so a photon of only 99% the energy normally required need be absorbed. This creates a red-shifted absorption line in the spectrum.
Note from Figure 9 that the velocity of the piece of matter
carrying away the KE, when a red-shifted photon is created, is always directly
away from the center of mass causing the gravitational field. It is also clear
that these pieces of matter could be carrying substantial amounts of kinetic
energy (KE), as they could be traveling at very high speeds. If the piece of matter
consisted of just the “basic particle” that carried away this energy, then it
would be traveling at the speed of light, and have kinetic energy
½(160,000mb)v² = ½mbc²
Dividing each side by ½, then by 160,000, then by mb, we get:
v² = c²/160,000
Taking the square root of each side, we get:
v = c/400 = 300,000/400 = 750 km/s.