the conceptual fallacy at the heart of big bang …1 the conceptual fallacy at the heart of big bang...
Post on 11-Jul-2020
20 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
The conceptual fallacy at the heart of big bang cosmology
Quantum cosmology: mechanics of a self-creating universe
Anton Biermans
selfcreatinguniverse@gmail.com
If there would be only a single electrically charged particle in the universe so it cannot
express its charge in interactions, then it cannot be charged itself, so charge any
property is something which lives within particle interactions. As in that case particles,
their properties must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, their
communication is instantaneous. The contradiction that according to the photon its
transmission is instant but we measure it to take a time proportional to the distance it
covers cannot be solved in a universe where time passes at the same pace everywhere.
Like a particle cannot be charged itself if there is no other charge; as by definition there
is nothing outside the universe relative to which it can be said to exist, nothing it can
interact with to express its properties, a selfcreating universe cannot have certain
properties, be in some particular state as a whole as ‘seen’ from without nor as seen
from within. As it only exists as seen from within so contains, produces all time inside
of it, then clocks cannot be observed to run at the same pace at all distances even
when at rest: as there is no universewide now, past, present and future are relative,
local notions as opposed to a big bang universe which, as it has certain properties and
at any time is in some particular state as a whole, has an external if, for practical
reasons, unobservable reality so lives in a time continuum not of its own making.
If why quantum mechanics works still isn’t understood, then that is because the
constant of nature called ‘the speed’ of light is misinterpreted as a velocity instead of
the property of spacetime it is in a selfcreating universe: as the communication
between particles and the transmission of light in this universe is instantaneous, it is
obvious why nothing goes faster than light. While light in a big bang universe moves
through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels; in a universe where
there is no universewide now, its transmission is instant over any spacetime distance.
This study explores how a universe might create itself out of nothing yet have no
beginning since if it can create itself, it always could. However simplified things are
represented in this study and however many serious flaws it has; it will become clear
that if there is one thing which completely blocks the progress of physics unification of
forces, of general relativity with quantum mechanics, why quantum mechanics works
then is the embarrassingly naïve, medievally outdated hodgepodge of ad hoc
assumptions, absurdities and contradictions called big bang cosmology.
2
Contents
1 Introduction / summary . . . . . . 3
2 The why of gravity; gravity and time. . . . . 47
3 The equality of gravitational and inertial mass . . . 57
4 The energy of empty spacetime. . . . . . 62
5 The distance redshift inherent to a selfcreating universe. . . 67
6 The selfcreation of energy: particles and antiparticles . . 69
7 The origin of particle species / the unification of forces . . 78
8 The second law of thermodynamics . . . . . 84
9 The speed of light . . . . . . . 86
10 Feynman’s path integral . . . . . . 91
11 Why quantum mechanics works . . . . . 94
The doubleslit experiment
Schrödinger’s cat
Quantum entanglement the EinsteinPodolskiRosen (EPR) paradox
12 Higgs and the origin of mass . . . . . 102
13 Observational evidence for a big bang versus a selfcreating universe 107
The cosmic microwave background radiation
The abundance of light elements
The distribution of quasars and the metallicity of stars and nebula
Evolution of galaxies and the large scale structure of spacetime
ABBRIVIATIONS . . . . . . . . 117
3
The universe is all of time and space and its contents. Wikipedia1
People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and
time would exist. My theory proves that space and time would disappear along with matter.
Albert Einstein2
1
Introduction / summaryIF THE UNIVERSE can create itself out of nothing without any outside interference,
what kind of particles to craft, what physical laws to install and what constants of
nature to select, then we should, in principle, be able to figure it out as well, especially
if we can reverse engineer it from what we see how it is and works.
However, if when it can create itself, it always must have been able to, then can it have
a beginning? For if it has a beginning, then this would imply a decision when to start its
creation, an intent to create it, that it has been created by some outside intervention,
that time already passes before there is a universe even though nothing much may
happen, last, before the big bang, that time passes even outside of it, that it has a
beginning and grows older in time: that it lives in a time realm not of its own making.
While big bang cosmology (BBC) states that there is no time, that time isn’t defined
outside the universe, that time only started at the big bang so there was no time in
which it didn’t exist; as a beginning presupposes a previous state a previous time in
which it didn’t yet exist, time in BBC is nevertheless thought to pass even before the
big bang and even outside the universe despite its (cl)aim to describe the universe
from within. This study explores how the universe can create itself out of nothing,
without any outside interference without having a beginning as a whole and what this
implies for the origin of energy, of mass, for the nature of gravity, of space and time.
As BBC conceives of the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties
and at any time is in some particular state as a whole, here we may imagine to look at
it from the outside which in this text is referred to as the global view.
If by definition there is nothing outside the universe relative to which it can be said to
exist, if it cannot have particular properties and be in some particular state as a whole
as ‘seen’ from without nor as seen from within so it only exists as seen from within,
then it doesn’t, like a big bang universe (BBU), live in a time realm not of its own
making but contains,3 produces all time within, then it cannot have a beginning, a
definite age as a whole nor are we allowed to imagine looking at the universe from the
outside as to do so is to assume that it has certain properties and is in some particular
state: that it has been created by some outside intervention, violating the definition of
what a universe is. If when the universe can create itself, it always could and there is no
school where it can learn how to create itself, if before it exists, there is nothing with
which it might wish to create itself, then, as far as it makes sense to speak about a
beginning, its mechanics the general principle which enables its selfcreation should
be selfevident, even though things may get quite complicated as it keeps evolving.
1 Unless specified otherwise, all quotations from Wikipedia are from the years 201820 which is often
referred to make this study more accessible, readerfriendly to a larger public interested in physics. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hole_argument&oldid=520160850
‘It was formerly believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe, time and space would
be left. According to relativity theory, however, time and space disappear together with the things.’ (1921)3 Quote marks as the term contains wrongly suggests that all time, every event which ever happens
somehow is conserved, as if it remains accessible, in principle, to observation to all observers.
4
If particles only can be said to exist if they can express their existence, their properties
in interactions, and this they only can if they have energy and the universe is to create
itself out of nothing, then that must mean that energy whatever kind of stuff it may
turn out to be has the tendency to increase, to keep creating itself a tendency which
manifests itself as gravity and which, as will be discussed, relativity theory predicts.
If reason tells us that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing if conservation
laws are to be obeyed, the net energy of the universe to remain zero then that must
mean that the energy of particles is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, something which in
one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, the sign of which alternates at a
frequency proportional to their energy. If so, then this has profound consequences for
our understanding of time, for the origin of mass and the nature of gravity.
If the uncertainty principle (UP) implies that the energy of particles1 increases as the
uncertainty in their position decreases which it does as they contract to clusters (stars,
galaxies), if energy is a source of gravity and we may call anything which exerts gravity
‘mass’ and mass in a SCU cannot causally precede gravity, then instead of, as in BBC,
saying that particles contract because they in some mysterious manner have been
endowed with a certain rest mass at their creation at the big bang and masses for
some unfathomable reason attract that their mass is the cause of their gravitational
attraction we can as well say that their mass only increases if and when they contract
as opposed to the present, classical view according to which the mass of particles is the
cause of their attraction so decreases as they contract to clusters.
The misleading thing about gravity, then, is that in driving the changes we experience
as the passing of time the contraction of particles to stars and galaxies we have a
sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that one their mass is cause of
the other, of their contraction, as if mass causally precedes gravity and time eternally
passes at some particular, unperturbable pace no matter whether something happens,
changes or not, as if the universe lives in a time realm not of its own making. if, on the
other hand, we insist that mass causally precedes gravity, that the mass of particles
only is the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions, then the
origin of mass, of energy, the nature of gravity cannot be understood even in principle.
If the definition of what a universe is implies that it cannot have certain properties, be
in any single, particular state so cannot have a beginning as a whole, then that doesn’t
mean that particles cannot evolve to higher energies. If when there is nothing outside
the universe, it cannot be in any particular state as a whole but only exists as seen from
within, then we must specify the observer or observing particle when describing how
his/her/its universe looks like, then it can be seen that, in the case of an observing
particle, its universe changes as it changes itself since, due to the tendency of energy to
increase (a tendency which, as will be argued, general relativity predicts), it tends to
evolve to everhigher energies and the energy it observes the objects within its inter
action horizon (IH), its universe to have depends on its own rest energy, its distance
and motion relative to the observed. If we associate a lower rest energy of particles, of
the galaxy they form with an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase, then the phase an observing
particle observes its universe to be depends on the evolutionary phase it is in itself
quote marks as in a SCU there is no such thing as cosmic time as in this universe there
is no universewide now, where past, present and future are relative, local notions.
(As an interaction between particles is an exchange of energy, of information, particles
in this study also appear as observers, as sources, carriers and receivers of information.
1 The lower their rest energy, the greater the uncertainty in the position from which their
energy acts, the less they act like particles, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase they are in.
5
Unless specified otherwise, the protagonists in this text are an unspecified kind of
particles though they may, for the sake of argument, adopt any property of any particle
species. Depending on the context, ‘particle’ can mean an elementary particle, a
particle which is in the process of evolving to an elementary particle, but also to a star,
a galaxy or cluster of galaxies. Observation doesn’t imply consciousness, a capability to
reflect on the received information unless we call the process whereby a change in the
observation of particles of each other, in the force they feel from each other is
processed into an adjustment of their motion relative to each other ‘consciousness.’)
Though according to BBC there’s nothing, no energy, space nor time outside so (cl)aims
to describe the universe from within; as it conceives of the universe as an ordinary
object which has particular properties and at any moment in cosmic time is in some
single, particular state as a whole, it nevertheless investigates the universe from an
imaginary a vantage point outside of it which only makes sense if it has been created
by some outside intervention, if it lives in a time realm not of its own making.
If a SCU only exists as seen from within if its particles only exist to each other if, for as
long and to the extent they interact, exchange energy, information, and not, as in BBC,
to an imaginary observer outside the universe then we must specify the observer or
observing particle when speaking about the evolutionary phase she / it observes her /
its universe to be in a phase which then is different to different observing particles,
meaning that the IH, the universe of every observing particle always contains objects in
all possible phases of their evolution be it that, for reasons to be discussed, not all
phases are accessible to observation by any observing particle as the energy it observes
the objects within its interaction horizon, its universe to have, the phase it observes
them to be in also depends on its own energy, on the evolutionary phase it is in itself:
that there is no single, universewide reality and hence no universewide now, that
past, present and future in a selfcreating universe are relative, local notions.
Carlo Rovelli1
… the idea that there exists a ‘‘now’’ all over the universe does not square with what we
know about the universe. … The picture of a Universe changing from one global instant
to the next is incompatible with what we know about the world.
If the universe is to create itself without violating any conservation law, then that must
mean that there either are as much particles with a positive as a negative energy a
possibility we can exclude if there is much more matter than antimatter in the universe
as a surplus is like saying that the universe has a net electric charge of 42 Coulombs,
say or that the energy of particles isn’t a static quantity, either positive or negative,
always, but something dynamic, something the sign of which alternates, the magnitude
of which varies in a wavelike manner in space and time. If energy is a dynamic quantity,
something which only exists, manifests itself as it is exchanged between particles to
express and preserve their, each other’s properties, then a scenario suggests itself in
which particles alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist: that their
energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next2 so the net energy of the
universe is and remains zero which is as it should be as it has no external reality but
only exists as seen from within.
IF WE MAY speak of a beginning of the universe (which we may not), if before it exists,
it has nothing with which it might be able to create or even wish to create itself and
1 The Disappearance of Space and Time in The Ontology of Spacetime (2006) p. 34 Edited by Dennis Dieks2 In which case, as will be discussed in § 6, every elementary particle would be its own antiparticle not to
be confused with Majorana particles.
6
calculate what kinds of particles, laws and constants of nature might result in a viable
universe, then the universe must be the result of a more or less gradual trial and error
evolution what manages to survive, survives … for as long as it survives rather than a
Hollywood scenario whereby the universe suddenly pops up from one moment to the
next () in a dramatic explosion.1
As a BBU seems to be the end result of a calculation prior to the big bang about what
particles are to be created in what amounts, what properties they are going to have,
about the initial conditions in which they are to be created and what constants and
laws of nature to install to create a viable universe, one can ask who or what decided
when to start the calculation and how it is going to look like, especially if before the big
bang there’s nothing, no material calculator nor Calculator to design it.
Moreover, as the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ which in BBC determines its
rate of expansion only makes sense if the universe has a nonzero energy content, the
creation of a BBU not only violates the energy conservation law but also defines energy
and space as independent quantities, implying that energy, space and time, the joule,
the length of the meter and duration of the second are defined even before and even
outside the universe: that it lives in a space and time realm not of its own making.
If what comes out of nothing must add to nothing let’s call this the Nix law, the most
fundamental of all laws of physics, the mother of all conservation laws then the total
energy of the universe cannot but be and remain zero. As the amounts of matter and
energy created at the big bang could have been different, it cannot be explained why
they are what they are but must have been set by something outside the universe: as
the creation of a BBU then cannot be understood even in principle, big bang cosmology
constitutes a premature capitulation of reason, of physics to metaphysics.
The fallacy at the heart of big bang cosmology, then, is that in speaking about the state
and properties of the universe, by imagining to look at it from the outside as if looking
over God’s shoulders at Her creation we state that the universe has been created by
some outside creator, so BBC is an exercise in religion rather than science.
While according to BBC the universe time itself is 13.8 billion years old;2 the concept
of cosmic time, the idea that the universe has a beginning, a definite age that it is the
same time, that time passes at the same pace everywhere3 inside of it anyhow is at
odds with the gravitational time dilation (GTD) of general relativity (GR) according to
which the observed pace of a clock is slower (faster) as the gravitational field at the
clock is stronger (weaker) than it is at the observer.
IF WE MAY associate a lower energy with an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase and the
energy a particle observes the objects within its IH to have also depends on its own rest
energy, its distance and motion relative to these objects, then so does the evolutionary
phase it observes its universe to be in. The lower its own rest energy is and the more
distant a galaxy is, the weaker its interactions are with the galaxy are, the lower the
energy it observes the galaxy to have so if we associate a lower energy with an ‘earlier’
evolutionary phase, then the particle observes the galaxy, its universe to be in an
earlier evolutionary phase at larger distances and/or as its own rest energy is lower, as
1 According to big bang cosmology it is not an explosion in space but an ‘abrupt appearance of expanding
spacetime containing radiation.’ For an introductory course on cosmology, watch this video, for example.2 The time as measured by a clock which always has been at rest relative to the Hubble flow since the big
bang. Wikipedia: “The comoving time coordinate is the elapsed time since the Big Bang according to a
clock of a comoving observer and is a measure of cosmological time. The comoving spatial coordinates tell
where an event occurs while cosmological time tells when an event occurs.”3 Except, according to general relativity, near masses, near localized energy.
7
it is in an earlier phase of its evolution to everhigher energies itself. As there is no
threshold between a zero and an infinitesimal energy, its creation can be said to have
started infinitely long ago, that it never didn’t exist even though its existence for all its
effects is less distinguishable from its nonexistence as its energy is lower, implying that
the universe of every observing particle always contains objects it all possible phases of
their evolution though not all phases are accessible to observation by all particles as
the phase they observe their universe to be in depends on their own energy.
Only if particle properties would only be the source, but not also, simultaneously, the
product of their interactions, of their energy exchange, of their behavior relative to
each other would it be defensible to conceive of the universe as an object which has
certain properties and at any time is in some single, particular state as a whole as
‘seen’ from without and as seen from within, to imagine looking at it from the outside.
However, if the universe by definition cannot be in any particular evolutionary phase as
a whole, if it has no external reality so doesn’t live in a time continuum not of its own
making, then we cannot think of time as passing at the same pace everywhere inside of
it, so if BBC despite what seems to be overwhelming observational evidence for the
big bang cannot be a valid theory, then there must be something wrong with the
interpretations of those observations, with the assumptions they are based upon.
THIS STUDY INVESTIGATES how particles might create themselves, each other: how, if
energy tends to increase, to keep creating itself and particle properties are cause and
effect of their interactions, of an energy exchange the magnitude, the frequency of
which depends on their distance and relative motion, they might evolve to elementary
particles, acquire the properties we find them to have why they have the properties
they have, what the origin is of their energy of any kind of charge which contributes to
and, in a SCU, is a manifestation of their energy from their own point of view, taking
the Nix law as starting point and guideline.1
Whereas the progress of classical mechanics (CM), of a physics which limits itself to
discover, analyze and quantify phenomena, to how nature works2 in terms of cause
and effect and may give clues to why things are as they are and happen as they do has
been impressive; when its progress is obstructed by misinterpretations of observations
and outdated ideas, it may be helpful to work from the other direction, to infer from
first principle the Nix law how the universe might go about creating itself, how things
ought to be and work rather than how we concluded that it works from observations:
whether we can infer what particle species, properties, laws and constants of nature
we can expect and let any (dis)agreement of its predictions with observations guide
our investigation keeping in mind that a SCU has no beginning as a whole.
However important it is to analyze and quantitatively describe how the universe works;
only if we can infer why it is as it is from first principle can we hope to understand how
it can create itself, why particles have the properties they have, the nature, the origin
of mass, of the energy they observe, cause each other to have (defined as proportional
to the force they feel/exert or to the frequency at which they exchange energy), why
1 Though we cannot speak about particles before they evolve to elementary particles, a process whereby,
as will be discussed in § 6, the uncertainty or indefiniteness in their location and motion (which, as we
infer their properties from their behavior, translates as the indefiniteness) in their properties, in their
nature and magnitude decreases as the position and motion of the point their energy acts from becomes
less indefinite; in this text these ‘unfinished,’ illdefined blobs of energy are called ‘particles’ for short.2 “Newton’s theory of mechanics and gravitation cannot be accepted as an explanation in the true sense of
the word.” Max Jammer in Concepts of force (1957) p. 206. The same holds, to some extent, for many
present theories. If we can describe gravity quantitatively, then that doesn’t necessarily mean that we
understand its nature, why there is such a thing like gravity which is one of the aims of this study.
8
the laws of nature are what they are, why quantum mechanics (QM) works and figure
out how general relativity can reformulated, be unified with quantum mechanics.
To avoid any misunderstanding from the outset, a selfcreating universe should not be
confused with Hoyle’s steadystate universe (SSU) as this suffers the same flaw as a
BBU in that it is thought of as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a
whole and similarly lives in a time continuum not of its own making, the difference
being that a SSU has no beginning and always looks about the same.
As a BBU doesn’t satisfy the definition of what a universe is so the big bang hypothesis
describes a fictitious universe yet is accepted by almost all physicists due to what
seems to be overwhelming observational evidence, any description and conclusion this
study may arrive at will fundamentally differ from the gospel according to BBC and
therefore seem suspect, hard to digest, to take serious at first sight.
WHILE CAUSALITY is useful in classical, causal mechanics which describes the world at
macroscopic level, the world we are familiar with as we can see it with the naked eye;
in a universe where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, things
at particle quantum level obviously cannot be understood causally, only rationally.
Though the distinction between cause and effect was instrumental to the development
of physics; the flaw of causality is that if we understand some event only if we can
identify it as the result, the effect of a previous event and can comprehend this event
only if we can trace it back to another, preceding event which caused it and this chain
of cause and effect goes on ad infinitum, then we can never understand or prove
anything definitely, whereas if this chain ends somewhere if it starts with a primordial
cause which, as it cannot be explained as the effect of a previous event, cannot be
understood by definition then causality ultimately cannot explain anything.
In a universe where particles create, cause each other into existence, things explain
each other in a circular way: here we can take any element of an explanation, any link
of the chain of reasoning without proof, use it to explain the next link and so on, to
follow the circle back to the assumption we started with, which this time is explained,
proved by the foregoing reasoning if our reasoning is sound and our assumptions are
valid a reasoning which ought to work as well in the reverse direction.
In the words of T.S. Eliot1
We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time.
While a meteorologist can explain rain causally sun heats air (and water) so absorbs
more water as gas and expands as it heats, and, as its specific weight decreases as it
expands, it starts to ascend and cools on the way up until it becomes oversaturated
with water which then condenses, forms droplets which grow and eventually start to
fall as rain; a physicist has to explain why raindrops fall, why there is such a thing as
gravity, what the nature and origin is of the mass of particles.
However material causality has been to the development of physics, of classical aka
causal mechanics; as any causal reasoning only can start from some primal cause which
cannot be understood by definition, the assumption that the universe has a beginning
presupposes just such primordial incomprehensible cause.
In assuming that the universe has a beginning, in conceiving of it as an ordinary object
which at any time is in some particular state as a whole where it is the same time,
where time passes at the same pace everywhere BBC, while refraining from making
1 T.S. Eliot, Four quartets
9
statements about what caused the universe into existence, nevertheless asserts that it
has been created by some outside intervention as only in that case it would be justified
to imagine looking at it from without, to speak about its age, properties and state.
Causality has become an obstruction to the progress of physics, the source of some
fundamental problems which despite efforts of generations of physicists refuse to be
solved as it are pseudo problems, problems which arose from a skewed way of looking
at things, such as regarding the universe as if it is an ordinary object, an object which
has been created by some outside interference, a universe the particles of which only
are the source but not also the product of their interactions, particles which in some
mysterious manner have been provided with the occult propensity to cause events, to
power forces but not to be driven by anything themselves which is impossible as it
takes energy to perform work and conservation laws are to be obeyed.
As it took me a long time to even get used to the insight that if the energy of particles
indeed is source and product of their interactions, their communication and hence the
transmission of light must be instantaneous which relativity theory appears to forbid I
can well imagine the trouble readers will have not to discard this study right away.
One reason to suspend their disbelief is that only in a universe where it is the same
time, where time passes at the same pace everywhere, action at a distance implies an
infinite light velocity, not in a universe where there is no universewide now, where
time cannot be thought of as passing a the same pace everywhere: in a SCU there is no
action at a space distance but action at a spacetime distance.
Though in a BBU we can speak about the spacetime distance of objects as due to what
in this universe is a finite light velocity, we look farther into the past as we look at
larger distances, that it in this sense contains, produces all time inside of it; the all
important difference is that since the universe by definition only exists as seen from
within so doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own making, it cannot be in any single,
particular state as a whole so it cannot be the same time, time be observed to pass at
the same pace everywhere, we cannot say that we a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in
a distant past, in the past as we look at larger distances: in a SCU we don’t see it as it is,
of itself, but as is, to us, in what only to us is the present. As the universe only can have
a beginning, can be said to exist, have properties if there is something outside of it to
interact with to express its properties, something relative to which it starts to exist; in
assuming that all objects and observers anywhere only are real, live, within an infinitely
narrow time interval called ‘now,’ a BBU lives in a time realm not of its own making.
Only in a universe which has an external reality, which has particular properties and at
any time is in some particular state as a whole is there a single, objective reality at the
origin of our observations which is the same to all observers (if they account for the
effect of their distance and motion relative to the observed on their observations), not
in a universe which only exists as seen from within: here we must specify the observer
or observing particle when describing the universe they observe, not the universe as
there is no such thing: here there are as many more or less different universes1 as
there are observers or observing particles. If particles exchange energy to express and
at the same time preserve their, each other’s properties, they can be said to be made
out of each other, then we cannot ask how a particle or galaxy is, of itself which of
course doesn’t mean that we cannot speak about its properties or behavior: the point
is that their origin, and nature, why they are and act as they do only can be understood
1 At least at quantum level. This may be different when we look at macroscopic scale, at classical
objects and events as their behavior does seem to obey causality.
10
if we keep in mind that the properties of the particles and the galaxies they form are
cause and effect of their interactions. Similarly, though a SCU only exists as seen from
within so is completely selfcontained, that doesn’t mean that we cannot explore it
scientifically as long as we specify the observer or observing particle.
If we are to figure out how the universe can create itself out of nothing, without any
outside interference without having a beginning as a whole, then we must investigate
it from the point of view of the particles doing the creating, by following how their
universe looks like in different phases of their evolution to everhigher energies.
IF PARTICLES AND the objects they form tend to evolve to higher energies, we may
associate a higher energy with a ‘later’ evolutionary phase and clocks are observed to
run at a slower pace as they are more distant even when at rest so the energy of an
elementary particle, the frequency it is observed to oscillate at is lower as observed
from a larger distance, then we see things in an ‘earlier’ phase as they are more
distant, not as they were in a more distant past, in the past, at an earlier moment in
cosmic time as there is no such thing in a SCU, but as it is, to us, as we look at it, at
what only to us is the present quote marks on earlier and later to emphasize that in
this universe past, present and future are relative notions. Although an observer in a
distant galaxy may observe the Milky Way in an equally early evolutionary phase as we
see her galaxy; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that the universe grows older at the
same pace everywhere, that we see her galaxy not just in an early phase but as it was
at an earlier moment in cosmic time because it takes its light so long to reach us: if
their properties are cause and effect of their interactions, then we cannot escape the
conclusion that their communication and the transmission of light is instantaneous.
If the universe of any observer or observing particle everywhere at all times contains
objects in all possible phases of their evolution, then it can be seen how the universe of
any observer or observing particle always can contain its own beginning if it can be
called a beginning if the threshold between the existence and nonexistence of a
particle, between a zero and an infinitesimal, nonzero energy yet have no beginning as
a whole as indeed it only exists as seen from within.
The insight this study started with is that only a universe which creates itself out of
nothing, without any outside interference can be understood in principle not casually,
only rationally. If it is not easy to understand it in practice, then that is because it is
difficult to discard some cherished but naïve, outdated ideas, like the assumption that
light is something which moves through space, in time, that time passes at the same
pace everywhere in empty space, that there is a universewide now. While CM, GR and
BBC are based on the assumption that there is a single, objective, universewide reality,
a reality which only for practical reasons cannot be observed from outside the universe
(like finding the exit and the absence of space and time for an observer to be in); as in a
SCU there is no single, objective universewide reality all observers and objects share,
live in, we must specify the observer or observing particle when speaking about not
the universe as there is no such thing but the universe they observe.
The idea of a universewide now only applies to a universe which has a beginning as a
whole, which has been created by some outside creator: where particle properties only
are the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions in which
case their entire future behavior every single future event would be predetermined
to the last detail, to the last of an infinite number of decimals at their creation.
@@@@ 1452020 (9:20)
In this text the expression ‘spacetime distance’ means that points only can be observed
to be separated spatially, to be at different distances if time is observed to pass at a
11
(slightly) slower pace at the more remote point. In a SCU the communication between
particles is instant over any spacetime distance in the sense that we don’t see a distant
galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past, but as it is, to us as we look at it.
The idea of instantaneity or simultaneity only means that we cannot think of light as
something which moves through space in time, the universe growing older as it travels.
In a SCU we cannot think of all observers and objects everywhere as being real, live (as
in attending a concert rather than watching a video) only within an infinitely narrow
time interval at some particular moment in cosmic time, in what in a BBU would be a
global now, in the present: in a SCU past, present and future are relative, local notions.
WHILE THE EQUATION which describes how the observed pace of a moving clock varies
with its velocity relative to the observer is quite straightforward at the speed of light it
is completely frozen in time, so according to the observer, the transmission of a photon
is instant from the point of view of the photon even though he himself measures its
transmission to take a time proportional to the distance it covers.
As will be argued in § 5 and 9, both points of view only can be reconciled in a universe
where clocks at rest are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant
even though it remains to be seen whether this implies some kind of expansion.
It is because a particle moving at the speed of light is completely frozen in time why its
state, its energy cannot change, why it cannot express its energy in interactions with
the objects relative to which it is supposed to move why it is massless.
If at the speed of light it cannot interact with the objects in the environment it travels
through, it has no physical reality to these objects, if it doesn’t exist to these objects
nor the environment to the photon, then it doesn’t even make sense to speak about its
velocity relative to the environment. Though we certainly can predict where we can
intercept a photon when if we know where and when it was emitted in what direction;
this does not mean that we may interpret the constant of nature denoted by c as a
velocity: as will be argued in § 9, in a SCU it refers to a property of spacetime.
If due to the velocity time dilation of relativity theory the frequency at which a particle
exchanges energy with the objects in the environment it travels through is lower if its
interactions with these objects are weaker, slowed further down in time as it moves
faster1 and we may interpret weaker interactions to mean that its position is less
definite, then this suggests that the energy of a particle is higher as its interactions with
objects in the environment are stronger, that it is a stronger source of gravity as its
position is less indefinite: that in a SCU the rest energy of a particle depends on the
extent to which it is expressed in interactions instead of the other way around, as in
the classical view where its rest energy is fixed and it only is its expression as a force
which depends on its distance and motion relative to the objects it interacts with.
That is, if when a particle is accelerated, its interactions in directions perpendicular to
its path and decrease but increases in both forward and backward directions (with the
rocket which is accelerating it), then its energy or mass, like the force has a vector
character, so it maybe that it isn’t so much that its total energy changes, but only the
directions it acts in. The stronger the force the rocket exerts upon the particle, the
shorter, the less indefinite the distance between the rocket point and the particle is,
the stronger its inertia, its opposition to a further acceleration, the greater the mass it
1 While a light source looks shifted farther to red as it recedes or passes the observer at a higher velocity
and farther to blue as it nears the observer; this doesn’t hold for a photon as from its own point of view its
departure at one point doesn’t precede its arrival at the other so it cannot even be ascribed a direction of
motion even though the energy it is observed to have on absorption by an observer is higher, shifted
farther to blue as the light source nears the observer at a higher velocity.
12
exhibits in that direction. Though modern accelerators can accelerate electrons close
to the speed of light, as it never can attain the speed of light, this is still infinitely far
removed from the speed of light. In a SCU we cannot cause a particle to move at the
speed of light; we only can increase the probability that a lamp emits a photon if we
provide it with energy: a lamp is a device made in such manner that this probability is
extremely close but not equal to 1.
IF ACCORDING TO the uncertainty principle (UP) the energy of a particle is higher as it
is confined to a smaller volume as its position is less uncertain or less indefinite then
this suggests that energy is a stronger source of gravity as the position it acts from is
less indefinite, so if in this study we call any source of gravity ‘mass,’ then the rest mass
of an object is greater as the position of its mass center is less indefinite, as more of its
energy can be localized within (what as seen from outside its gravitational field is) a
smaller space. Though the predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED) where
photons behave as real particles which interact with electrically charged particles on
their path as they travel at the speed of light, like a billiard ball colliding with other
balls on its path are extremely accurate; as will be discussed in § 10, this doesn’t
necessarily mean that it are real, physical particles if we define a real particle as a
particle which always have a definite position which massless particles haven’t.
As will be discussed in § 9, the question whether we live in a big bang or a selfcreating
universe critically hinges on whether light is something which moves through space, in
time, the entire universe growing older as it travels, on whether its transmission is or
isn’t instant: on whether the constant called the speed of light refers to the velocity of
light in which case its observed value ought to vary with the velocity of the observer
relative to the light source or to a property of spacetime in which case its value
should not depend on the motion of the observer relative to the light source which
according to special relativity theory, it doesn’t.
IF WHEN THE universe by definition cannot have particular properties, be in any single,
particular state as a whole as ‘seen’ from without, it also cannot have such properties
and be in any single, particular state as a whole as seen from within, then there must
be something fundamentally wrong with the interpretation of the observations which
as yet seem to prove that we live in a big bang universe. If nature at its most basic
quantum level just isn't causal, then we need to revise our ideas as to what is and isn't
logical. While our logic developed in the course of a long evolution of living in a world
we only know at macroscopic level the world we can see with the naked eye and
which seems to obey causality; in a universe where particle properties are cause and
effect of their interactions, events at particle level cannot be understood casually, only
rationally. Our logic isn’t an infallible ability we are born with to distinguish sense from
nonsense but evolved as our species evolved and at best is a poor reflection of nature’s
logic which is what we want to decipher. Instead of demanding nature to follow
causality and risk misinterpreting observations to agree with what seems logical to us,
we need to keep an open mind as to what might be logical to nature itself.
A UNIVERSE WHICH cannot be understood causally, only rationally, which only exists as
seen from within differs fundamentally, radically from the ordinary object it is in BBC.
Though the conclusions the Nix law forces us to draw may seem too weird to possibly
make sense; a new way of looking at, of thinking about things opens up a new world a
world which may seem weird only because we’re not yet familiar with it.
A new paradigm, a new way of looking at, of thinking about at nature is not unlike
seeing the world for the first time in color after having known it only in black and
13
white. The problem, however, is that the blackandwhite language and semantics, its
inherent logic is inadequate to express, communicate how the world looks like in color.
Not only does a new paradigm contradict the old view on some, often subtle yet crucial
points; as it doesn’t (chrono)logically follow from the old view, from the old ways of
looking at, of thinking about things, it cannot be understood within the conceptual
framework of the old paradigm. It usually is the other way around: only as we discover
how the world looks in color does it become clear why objects in the blackandwhite
view have the particular shade of grey they have.
Like the image of a jigsaw puzzle only becomes recognizable when a minimum number
of pieces have been laid out; to make sense of it, to see how the world looks in color
and become familiar with it, the reader will have to be patient, to be able and willing to
suspend her disbelief, to allow me to set out the different pieces which only together
make sense.
The work of a physicist is not unlike a blind mountaineer who cannot know whether his
path leads to the top of the mountain or only to the top of a foothill. Though almost all
physicists believe that big bang cosmology is the right track to the peak, this study
shows why this is wishful thinking: that we’re familiar with the big bang tale
unfortunately doesn’t make it true. It is big bang cosmology the assumption that the
universe has a beginning, that it is the same time, that time passes at the same pace
everywhere why we came to think of light as something which moves through space,
in time: why we are mystified to find that experiments show that the communication
between entangled particles is instant, why some ninety years after its discovery, it still
is unclear why quantum mechanics works which seems a requisite to even think about
merging general relativity with quantum mechanics.
Whereas the discovery that the Earth, despite appearances, isn’t the center of the
universe was generalized to the idea that no point in space is more special than any
other, that any point or particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of the universe;
in a universe which only exists as seen from within so doesn’t live in a time realm not
of its own making, there also is no point in time which is more special than any other,
no unique, universewide present all observers and objects live in. In a selfcreating
universe there is no objective, fixed, observer independent pace of time:1 here time
cannot be thought of as passing at the same pace everywhere, at all distances.
AS A CAUSAL reasoning starts with a primordial cause which cannot be understood by
definition, it isn’t surprising that BBC doesn’t offer any idea about the origin of the
energy created at the big bang, of its cause, why it happened when it did (), explain
how the universe might create itself, how particles might evolve, acquire properties
but can only try to reconstruct the sequence of events from observations if such
sequence would be meaningful if the universe by definition doesn’t live in a time realm
not of its own making but contains, produces all time within.
As the universe in BBC is an ordinary objects so could have been different, it cannot be
understood even in principle why it is as it is and hence not how it can create itself.
Unable to explain things from first principle, BBC only can keep track of what happens,
not predict what will happen right from the start of the big bang ever after which any
theory worthy of the name should be able to. In trying to concoct a recipe, when to
add what kinds of matter and energy in what amounts are needed to reproduce the
observed redshifts of galaxies, BBC looks at the universe from the point of view of its
1 Which anyhow would require the existence of a clock outside the universe to compare its pace with,
whether it passes slow or fast, a clock the pace of which to quantify would require … ad infinitum.
14
creator, as if it is an ordinary object which can be composed, assembled from all kinds
of stuff the nature and origin of which then cannot but remain a mystery.
As the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ which is supposed to determine its
rate of expansion but which, as it could have been different, it cannot be explained
even in principle why it has the value it has defines energy and space as independent
quantities, it conceives of energy as something which can be put into an already
existing space, as if space and its unit are defined even in a universe devoid of energy
so despite its claim to the contrary, BBC conceives of the universe as an object which
lives in a space continuum not of its own making.
By contrast, as in a selfcreating universe it is localized energy which makes positions at
different distances physically different, which turns an abstract, mathematical space
into a real, physical spacetime defined as a space where the observed pace of clocks
and length of measuring rods (rods for short) differs from one point, one distance to
the next, however slightly here energy and space spacetime1 are intrinsically related:
as will be discussed, in a SCU the creation2 of energy is the creation not of space in
time as in BBC but of spacetime: as in this universe you cannot have one without the
other, a concept like the energy density of the universe doesn’t make any sense.
WHILE THE TERM cosmic time in BBC implies that if to all observers everywhere the
universe is isotropic about the same in all directions it also is homogeneous; in a SCU
such isotropy doesn’t imply homogeneity as it then would be an ordinary object which
has particular properties and at any time is in some particular state as a whole.
As traditionally the mass of particles is thought to be only the cause of forces, a fixed,
interaction space independent quantity, this should have caused an inhomogeneous
distribution of matter over space, so the observation that the universe at large scale
nevertheless is quite flat and homogeneous, the cosmic microwave radiation to be
isotropic to about one part in 100,000 forced big bang cosmologists to invent an some
artificial, farfetched ad hoc inflation to ‘explain’ this. Quote marks to emphasize that
inflation doesn’t explain anything unless it can be predicted, inferred to happen from
first principle when it will start and stop and happen at what rate which it doesn’t as
these times and its rate of are inferred from observations.
By contrast, in a SCU such isotropy follows automatically, naturally from the fact that
the energy (and, as it is a source of gravity, the mass) of particles is cause and effect of
their interactions and according to Newton’s 3rd law, a force only can become as strong
as the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, a particle always is at such place and /
or moves in such manner that as seen from its own point of view, forces on it from all
particles to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes are equal
from all directions, it tends to evolve to higher energies at such places where this is the
case, implying what at large but not too large a scale looks like a homogeneous mass
distribution as the same goes for all particles within its interaction horizon, especially in
a universe where the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime.
Since according to the uncertainty /indeterminacy / indefiniteness principle (UP) the
energy of particles is higher as the indefiniteness of their position is smaller which for
reasons which will become clear, in this text is chosen to be smaller as their distance is
smaller, as there is more energy involved in a change of their distance per unit distance
(as measured outside their gravitational field), then their energy the energy they
1 Strictly speaking, we only can speak about spacetime in a SCU, not in a BBU where it is the same (cosmic)
time, where time passes at the same pace everywhere in empty pace, far from masses.2 In English a thing is created, as if it is something which happens to it, implying a creator unlike the
German ‘entstehen’ which is neutral as to its cause, leaving open the possibility of an unaided selfcreation.
15
observe each other to have1 and, as it is a source of gravity, their mass, ought to
increase as they contract at places provided this doesn’t violate any conservation law.
However, as traditionally particles were thought to have been endowed with a certain
rest mass at their creation by God / at the Big Bang and it takes energy from the
particles to contract to stars, in this, present view, their mass should decrease.
Clearly, in a universe where their energy is as much the cause as the effect of their
interactions (with all other particles within their IH), of forces between them, their
energy, and hence their mass should increase if and when forces between them
increase a mechanism which isn’t selfevident as the creation, the increase of their
energy is accompanied by, is indistinguishable from the creation, the increase of the
distances between their mass centers, as measured inside their gravitational field.
As particles in CM, in BBC have an autonomous existence so once created by God / at
the Big Bang, a particle stays created, keeps existing even if we could isolate it, prevent
it to interact, to physically communicate its existence, its rest energy is thought of as a
privately owned, mortgage free, fixed, static quantity which if true would mean that
any kind of charge similarly should be a static quantity. If a charge only can power a
force, a force only can perform work if the charge powering it is a form of energy, then
any kind of charge contributes to and is a manifestation of the energy of particles.
As classically the rest energy of particles is thought of as an intrinsic, fixed quantity, as
being only the source of forces, here the energy or charge sign of a particle should be a
static quantity, either positive or negative, always. By contrast, if in a SCU particles only
exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact, exchange energy to
express and at the same time preserve their, each other’s properties so here energy is
a dynamic quantity and hence any kind of charge which contributes to, which is a
manifestation of their energy something which flows back and forth, something the
magnitude of which varies in a wavelike manner, alternately increasing and decreasing,
something the sign of which alternates at a frequency proportional to its energy (E = hv
with v the frequency and h the Planck constant) or, equivalently, the sign of which
alternates in space over a distance inversely proportional to its energy, meaning, as will
be argued in § 6, that in a SCU any particle is its own antiparticle (not to be confused with
Majorana particles), its energy sign in one phase as positive as it is negative in the next,2
implying that the sign of the electric charge of a particle isn’t, as in the current view, is
either positive or negative, but alternates at a frequency proportional to its energy.3
Whereas particles in CM, in BBC, once created, stay created without this taking any
effort on the part of the particles; in a SCU they would cease to exist to each other,
vanish without trace and with it the universe if we could cut off their communication, if
we could prevent them to exchange energy, to alternatively lend and borrow each
other the energy to exist, to express and preserve their, each other’s properties.
AS IN A selfcreating universe the energy particles observe each other to have here
loosely defined as the frequency at which they exchange energy is source and product
of their interactions with all other particles within their IH so varies with their distance
1 An observing particle is unlikely to be able to distinguish between the energy another particle has and its
expression in interactions with it which according to us depends on their distance.2 The fact that the photon a hydrogen atom emits as it deexcites, as the distance between its electron and
proton decreases, is its own antiparticle, that its energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the
next already suggests that the same should hold for the energy of both the electron and proton.3 “The supposition that the electric charges of electrons and protons seem to cancel each other exactly to
extreme precision is essential for the existence of the macroscopic world as we know it, but this important
property of elementary particles is not explained in the Standard Model of particle physics.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory#Motivation (2642020)
16
and relative motion, energy, space and time are intrinsically related as opposed to a
big bang universe where, as their rest energy is an interaction independent quantity, it
only is its expression in interactions which depends on their distance and relative
motion, energy, space and time only are superficially related.
Now if any particle alternates, oscillates between opposite states, its energy in one
phase as positive as it is negative in the next so two identical particles can annihilate if
they meet in counter phase, then they also can create each other without violating any
conservation law if they pop up with an opposite energy sign, if one particle borrows
its positive energy from the other particle, which then pops up with an equal, negative
energy. As according to the UP their lifetime is inversely proportional to their energy,
they would cease to exist, to each other after a time which is shorter as their energy is
higher unless they manage to set up an energy exchange by means of which they force
each other to reappear after every disappearance: the shorter, the less indefinite their
distance is, the higher the frequency or the shorter the wavelength they exchange
energy in, the higher the energy they observe, cause each other to have.
While classically the sign of the rest energy of particles is always positive and that of
antiparticles negative1 as it is thought to be a fixed, static quantity so a particle either is
a particle or antiparticle; if in a SCU their energy sign alternates, then it depends on the
phase the observing particle is in itself and its distance to the another particle in which
phase particle or antiparticle it observes the other particle to be.
As any two particles at equilibrium exchange energy in counterphase which they are
distance equal to (2n +1)/2 times the wavelength they exchange energy in (with n an
integer), the amount of energy involved in a change from one equilibrium distance to
the next is quantified and hence their distance which then changes in discrete steps.
As will argued in § 7, it is because their energy is quantized because it is something the
sign and magnitude of which varies in a wavelike manner within every cycle of their
oscillation, of their energy exchange2 why particles can achieve a stable equilibrium,
form stable matter, why there can be a universe at all.
While classically, the annihilation of an electron and antielectron (positron) produces
two identical photons moving apart in opposite directions so reversely, an electron
positron pair isn’t created out of nothing but out of photons, out of an already existing
quantity of energy; as in a SCU both electrons owe their energy to, contribute to the
energy of all other particles within their IH, they only can annihilate with the consent,
the cooperation of all these particles, the emission of photons as they annihilate can be
seen as the refund of the energy out of which they were created by these particles
even though, as will be argued in § 9, each photon is absorbed by a single atom, say.
As in a SCU particles exist to each other, are part of each other’s universe only if they
exchange energy, as energy is something which lives within their interactions, it and
the particles between which it is exchanged have no reality to an imaginary observer
outside the universe: as it is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next and
particles preferably exchange energy in counter phase, the total net energy of a SCU
1 As a negative energy (E = hv) suggests a negative frequency v and this makes no sense, one has decided
that the energy sign of a positron is positive but its charge sign opposite to that of the electron or,
equivalently, that the positron moves in a backward time direction.2 We only can say that a particle oscillates, that the sign and magnitude of its energy changes in a wavelike
manner if it actually is observed to oscillate: if such change is communicated to the particles within its IH, if
there is a continuous energy exchange between all particles within each other’s interaction horizon.
To communicate a change in their position or motion requires that all points of spacetime must be
informed about it, requiring the transmission of something the magnitude (and hence sign) of which varies
in time and hence in space: that energy be a dynamic, wavelike quantity, and with it spacetime itself.
17
cannot but remain zero, so the selfcreation of energy, of particles doesn’t violate any
conservation law as opposed to a BBU where its creation violates conservation laws.
As in a BBU their rest energy is a privately owned quantity, only the cause of forces,
here it is an objective, absolute quantity which but for practical difficulties (BFPD) can
be measured even from without the universe as indeed, a concept like the energy
density of the universe otherwise wouldn’t make any sense and it wouldn’t be possible
to think of the universe as an ordinary object we can describe from the outside, to
speak about its properties and state.
As the rest mass of particles classically was supposed to be an intrinsic, interaction
distance and motion, space and time independent quantity, an additional kinetic
energy had to be created at the big bang to make the universe, space expand in time,
to increase the distance between the freshly created particles and, after contracting to
galaxies, between clusters of galaxies against gravity between them (so the rate of
expansion should decrease in time), begging the question who or what determined the
amounts of the different kinds of matter and energy to be created at the big bang.
If by definition there is nothing outside the universe relative to which it exists, nothing
it can interact with, express its properties, nothing relative to which it can be said to
exist, to have some property and be in some particular state as a whole, it cannot have
such properties and be in such state as a whole, as seen from within, so it makes no
sense, as in BBC, to try to quantify its properties and state from an imaginary vantage
point outside of it.
Though BBC claims to describe the universe from within conform the view that there is
no space nor time outside of it, that the length of the meter and duration of the second
aren’t defined outside of it i.e., that the universe only exists as seen from within; the
concepts cosmic time and energy density of the universe the idea that the universe
has a definite age, that time passes at the same pace everywhere (in empty space) and
that energy and space are unrelated quantities implies that it lives in a spacetime
space and time realm not of its own making: which only would be if it has been created
by some outside intervention violating the definition of what a universe is.
Not only is it a mystery who / what determined the relative amounts of different kinds
of energy and matter to be created and when to start its creation why the universe
has the age it has, why, how if it can create itself, it always could, waited until the big
bang to actually create itself, it can have a beginning, a definite age; whereas the rate
of expansion of space for the first nine billion years is observed to slow down in time
due to gravity agreeing with expectations, observations indicate that its expansion
suddenly started to accelerate some four billion years ago an acceleration the timing
and magnitude of which either has been preprogrammed at the big bang or is adjusted
from the outside as we speak.
This acceleration is supposed to be driven by an unknown kind of energy called dark
energy aka cosmological constant (denoted by Λ), an energy which, despite the fact
that its value is supposed to have been different in different epochs, nevertheless is
supposed to be an intrinsic property of space though it is a mystery why Λ is so small
or rather how, why it has the values it has to have had in different epochs to explain
(our present interpretation of) observations.
The problem is that we only can say that space comes with a definite energy density if
energy and space are unrelated quantities, if they exist separately, if there is a kind of
space which comes without energy but the dimensions of which nevertheless can be
expressed in cubic meters, a space waiting to eventually be filled by God knows what
kinds and amounts of stuff, a space which somehow is filled with energy until it has
18
attained the energy density which is supposed to be intrinsic to it, that is, to the value
BBC needs it to have at the right times to ‘explain’ observations.
The origin of this confusion is the assumption that the rest energy of particles only is
the cause of interactions, that, while its expression as a force does depend on the
distance between and relative motion of particles, its magnitude is unrelated to space
and time: that we conceive of particles as fremdkörper in an alien environment.
While the creation of a big bang universe violates the energy conservation law as the
concept energy density of the universe otherwise wouldn’t make any sense; if, as will
be discussed in some detail, the energy of particles in a selfcreating universe in one
phase is as positive as it is negative in the next if a particle only can have a positive
energy in one phase as it borrows that energy from another particle which then is left
with an equal, negative energy so the net energy of this universe cannot but remain
zero, here energy is created ex nihilo, without violating any conservation law.
Whereas the rest energy of a particle in a BBU is an intrinsic, interaction space and
time independent quantity, only the cause of forces so it is defensible to imagine to
measure it from outside the universe), to treat it as an absolute, objective quantity; as
a SCU has no external reality but only exists as seen from within, its observed value
depends on the observer or observing particle so is a subjective, a relative quantity.
That is, while we can calculate the energy it is observed to have the frequency it is
observed to oscillate at by another particle knowing the rest energy, the distance and
velocity of the observing particle relative to the observed, a predictability we assume
originates in the fact that its rest energy is an intrinsic, fixed quantity; this it owes to its
interactions, its energy exchange with all other particles within its IH. In other words,
while it is handy to use its rest energy as if it is an absolute, objective quantity, only the
cause of interactions; in a SCU it has a different energy to different observing particles
if with its energy we mean the frequency it is observed to oscillate at. As this frequency
depends on the rest energy, distance and motion of the observing particle so is
different to different observing particles, the observed particle can be said to have
different energies, to be in different states simultaneously: that its energy is the sum,
the superposition of all wavelengths / frequencies it simultaneously exchanges energy
in / at with all other particles within its IH.
Whereas the properties of a particle in BBC are absolute, objective quantities which
BFPD can be observed from outside the universe; in a SCU we have to specify the
observer or observing particle when speaking about its energy, about the frequency it
oscillates at, which is different to different observing particles. Put differently, whereas
BBC assumes that there is a single, objective reality all objects and observers share, live
in, a universewide now; as a SCU only exists as seen from within, there are as many
more or less different realities, universes as there are observing particles.
In other words, whereas the rest energy of particles in CM is the starting point of
calculations, causing events, enabling us to quantify their interactions; in a SCU it is an
artificial construct, the product of all interactions particles are simultaneously involved
in and just as useful to quantify things as it is in CM, in BBC.
As in a universe where particle properties are source and product of their interactions,
their rest energy the rest energy they observe, cause each other to have depends on
their own rest energy, their distance and relative motion, here energy, space and time
are intrinsically related as opposed to a BBU where, as it only is the expression of their
energy in interactions which depends on such things, energy, space and time only are
superficially related. In fact, the idea that the rest energy of particles is an interaction
independent quantity, only the cause of forces, implies that space exists, is defined
19
even when devoid of energy: in BBC energy is something which can be put into space,
as if, though it does curve space, it has additional properties unrelated to space.
While the conservation law according to which the total energy in a perfectly isolated,
closed system cannot change is handy for bookkeeping purposes, to keep track from
outside some system what goes in and out; in a SCU it also holds for nature itself in the
sense that the creation of an amount of positive energy at one place is impossible
without the simultaneous creation of an equal quantity negative energy elsewhere.
As conservation laws imply that all information a particle contains in its rest energy,
distance and motion relative to all particles to which it owes its energy and to the
energy of which it contributes is present, in realtime, at all these particles, the Nix law
implies, all by itself, that the communication between particles is instant.
If, as will be argued in § 5, particles exchange energy in a longer wavelength as they are
farther apart and a longer wavelength corresponds to a less definite distance, to a
greater uncertainty in their distance, then the information they exchange about their
behavior or properties is less definite, of a lower grade or quality, of less import as
their distance is greater, less definite. The farther apart they are, the less their IH’s,
their universes coincide, overlap, the weaker their interactions area, the less definite
according to one particle, the position, the behavior of the other particle is, and hence
the less definite the properties it ‘infers’ the observed particle to have. The father
apart, the lower the energy they observe each other to have, the ‘earlier’ the
evolutionary phase they observe each other to be in, so information in a SCU is not the
absolute, objective quantity it is in a BBU something which exclusively lies in its sender
or carrier but also in the reader of that information: in a SCU information the energy
of a particle, the magnitude of its properties is something relative.
As the exchange of energy, of information between particles only serves to preserve
the status quo, the world we see, a world which at macroscopic scale seems so solid,
indestructible, it isn't observable so doesn’t seem to exist, to occur at all: it only would
become observable if we could cut off their energy exchange, their communication in
which case they would cease to exist to each other and the universe would vanish like
the picture on a tv screen when we pull its plug.
As in the classical view the rest energy of particles is thought of as a privately owned
and hence static quantity they were endowed with at their creation by God / at the Big
Bang, not something they alternately borrow and lend from and to each other, the
fundamental interactions of the standard model of physics merely describe changes,
perturbations of this status quo, events whereby the motion (or even the identity) of
particles changes due to collisions or to the exchange of forcecarrying particles like
gravitons and photons to express their mass and electric charge, but don’t comprise
the continuous exchange of energy between particles by means of which they express
and preserve all properties which contribute to, are manifestations of their energy.
TO SUMMARIZE, IF the Nix law, the definition of what a universe is implies that particle
properties are cause and effect of their interactions, of their behavior relative to each
other, of forces between them, then this has the following farreaching consequences:
� The transmission of light, the communication between particles is instant: as
the universe by definition cannot be in any particular state as a whole, time
cannot be thought of as passing at the same pace everywhere;
20
� A particle then cannot have a boundary surface separating its energy from (its
effect upon) space, the source of a gravitational or electric field from the field
itself, no infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary surface where the particle, its
properties end and space begins, between energy and space, so we cannot
think of elementary particles as having a definite dimension, as fremdkörper in
an alien space, as solid balls which live in space, of their energy as something
they have independently from space, from their distance and relative motion.
� If when any kind of charge is cause and effect of forces between particles, a
force cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself (agreeing with Newton’s
3rd law according to which a force cannot be unequal to the counter force it
meets or is able to evoke), then this throws a different light on the unification
of forces.
That is, if the distance between particles A and B changes then that isn’t so much
because their attraction overcomes their repulsion or the other way around as would
be the case if particle properties only would be the cause, but not also the effect of
their interactions but because the distance at which both forces are equal changes if
the system AB absorbs or emits energy, when the strength of both, opposite forces
increases or decreases equally, at a smaller respectively greater distance.
If when a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive of itself, then that must mean
that the sign (or color) of any kind of charge cannot be either plus or minus (red or blue
or green) but, if any kind of charge contributes to and is an expression of their energy
and energy is a dynamic quantity, something the sign (color) and magnitude of which
varies in a wavelike manner within every cycle of their energy exchange.
It should be noted, that if, as will be discussed in § 7, particles acquire properties,
evolve to the different species of elementary particles as they form atomic nuclei in the
high temperature, high pressure conditions in stars, it is likely that when they are
ejected in supernova explosions and end up in much less extreme conditions in
ordinary matter, they act as if they actually do have an autonomous existence, as if
their properties only are the cause of forces, that, depending on circumstances, they
exert a force which is either attractive or repulsive, as if the energy or charge powering
it is a static quantity, either positive or negative.
If they are forged in the extreme conditions in stars in a state of equilibrium, whereby
their attraction due to one force, one kind of charge equals their repulsion due to
another kind of charge at the extremely short distances they assume in stars and these
opposite forces have a different distance dependence, then it can be seen that in the
much less extreme conditions in ordinary matter where their distance is much larger
one force appears to be stronger, of itself, than the other, as if they are powered by
qualitatively different, yet opposite kinds of kinds of charge, one driving an attractive
and the other a repulsive force, as if their sign is fixed, either positive or negative.
However, if according to the uncertainty principle, the energy particles observe each
other to have increases as (the indefiniteness in) their distance decreases, then so does
magnitude of any charge though this also depends on things like their relative motion,
including any kind of spin.
Though the electric charge of particles may seem to be either positive or negative,
always; if energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, something the magnitude of which
only can change if its sign alternates the higher the frequency a particle oscillates
between opposite states, the higher its energy is then so is the sign of any charge.
If any kind of charge contributes to, is an expression of the energy of a particle if the
energy involved in one interaction, one force, due to one kind of charge powers and is
powered by all other interactions due to all other kinds of charge it simultaneously is
21
involved in, then the different kinds of charges aren’t the qualitatively different,
independent quantities they are in the present, classical causal view.
If when according to the UP the energy of particles increases as (the uncertainty in)
their distance decreases, that energy must be supplied by their environment and,
depending on their distance dependence, all kinds of charge contribute to, are the
expression of the energy of two particles, then this suggests that there is some kind of
communication of all these different kinds of charge of the two particles with those of
the particles within their interaction horizon. If the color force has a very short range,
then it is conceivable that the energy associated with the color charge of quarks is
communicated in the guise of mass, of their inertia, their opposition to a change in
their distance and relative motion in atomic nuclei, to a change of the position or
motion of atomic nuclei, of atoms, of ordinary matter: that it manifests itself as mass.
AS BBC ASSUMES that the universe at any time is in some particular state as a whole,
that it is the same time, that time passes at the same pace anywhere, the discovery
that the light of galaxies is shifted farther to red as they are more distant had to be
interpreted as caused by their receding motion, as proof that space expands, that the
universe must have had a beginning. If a SCU only exists as seen from within, if by
definition it cannot be in any single, particular state as a whole so doesn’t, like a BBU,
live in a time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time inside of it so
time cannot be observed to pass at the same pace everywhere, then, as will be argued
in § 5, this suggests that the redshift of galaxies isn’t a velocity but a distance redshift:
that clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant even
when at rest relative to the observer. It remains to be seen, however, whether or not
or to what extent this implies some kind of expansion ‘some kind’ as in a SCU going
back in time we don’t, as in a BBU, end in a gravitational singularity, in a state of
infinite energy density, not to mention that in a universal where there is no universe
wide now, it is impossible to go back in time, that it has no beginning as a whole.
Unlike in a BBU, in a SCU there is no absolute time, no universewide now, no infinitely
narrow time interval called ‘present’ all objects and observers, share, live in: meaning
that past, present and future are local concepts, that there is no universewide pace of
time, that the pace of time itself is relative, observer dependent quantity, the observed
pace of a clock depending on the gravitational field at the clock and at the observer, on
their spacetime distance and its rate of change.
Whereas clocks in a BBU in empty space, far from masses, moving with the Hubble flow
all run at the same pace, showing the same (cosmic) time; in a SCU two points only can
be observed to be separated in spacetime to be at physically different, distinguishable
places, distances if the pace of clocks and length of measuring rods at those points are
observed to differ, however slightly. If in a SCU there is no infinitely sharp, fundamental
boundary separating the energy of a particle from (its effect on) spacetime so empty
space isn’t devoid of energy and energy is a source of gravity, then the observed pace
of clocks and length of rods must vary from one point, one distance to the next. If it is
localized energy which makes positions at different distances physically different, then
the (self)creation of energy is (accompanied by, impossible without, indistinguishable
from) the creation not of space in time as in a BBU but of spacetime.
Whereas concepts like ‘cosmic time’ and ‘energy density of the universe’ in BBC define
energy, space and time as independent quantities, as if time passes anyhow, no matter
whether or not something happens, changes and space is an abstract, mathematical,
rarefied kind of stuff which is the same everywhere and expands in time at the same
rate everywhere, at a rate which is supposed to be determined by an energy content
22
the amount of which to ensure a uniform expansion rate must be the same anywhere,
where we only can speak abouts its energy density if energy and spacetime space
would be independent quantities, a density which, as it could have been different,
cannot be explained even in principle why it has the value it has; in a SCU it is localized
energy which makes positions at different distances physically different which makes
that the observed pace of clocks and length of rods differs from one point to the next.
That is, whereas in BBC the rate of expansion of space in time in different epochs
depends on the relative amounts of attractive (gravitating) and a hypothetical,
mysterious repulsive kind of energy; as the creation of energy in a SCU is the creation
not of space in time but of spacetime, there is no need for two unrelated, opposite
kinds of energy to explain observations energies the origin of which BBC cannot
explain since their ratio could have been different.
An expanding BBU means that galaxy clusters A and B eventually will get sufficiently far
apart that they recede from each other faster than the speed of light. The problem is
that if galaxy cluster C halfway between A and B keeps interacting with both A and B, A
and B are and remain physically connected to each other via C, however weakly, this is
impossible if we interpret the constant of nature c as a velocity instead of the property
of spacetime it is in a SCU. It is because BBC tries to ‘explain’ things globally, to imagine
looking from outside the universe in why it can make a statement about galaxies which
don’t physically belong to each other’s universe when they became incommunicado as
their receding velocity exceeded the speed of light. As a SCU only exists as seen from
within and we can define the interaction / observation horizon of observers anywhere
at that distance at which they observe time to pass at an infinitesimal pace (a horizon
which then is different to different observers / observing particles); it is unlikely that in
this universe galaxy clusters can vanish from view as they eventually will in a BBU, so
the creation of space in a SCU cannot be interpreted as an expansion of space in time.
Though a galaxy outside our IH does exchange energy with galaxies within our IH so
belongs indirectly to our universe; if to us time passes at an infinitesimal pace at
observation horizon (OH) then we see a galaxy at that horizon in its most ‘early’ phase
of its evolution, at what to us is the time at which we observe its particles have an
infinitesimal energy, i.e., an infinitely indefinite position a state which can be thought
of as the beginning/end of the our universe and to us lasts for an infinite time.
Only if we imagine looking at the universe from without thereby conceding that it has
been created by some outside intervention can we say that the universe is larger that
we can observe. The problem is that if a BBU is infinite in space, it always was infinite
so cannot have a beginning, whereas if we say that it has a finite, possibly expanding
dimension, we state that space and time are defined even outside the universe: that it
lives in a spacetime space and time realm not of its own making which is why BBC
presumes that it is legitimate to imagine and describe the universe from the outside in
the first place, to conceive of it as the ordinary object it by definition isn’t.
If the creation of energy in a SCU is the creation, not of space in time but of spacetime
meaning that it cannot be the same time, time pass at the same pace everywhere, that
there is no single, objective reality, no universewide now, that we are not allowed to
imagine looking from the outside in but must specify the observer or observing particle
when describing how their universe looks as seen from within and the universe of any
observer / observing particle always contains objects in all possible phases of their
evolution, then space is not some rarefied kind of stuff which is the same at all
distances, always. If, as will be discussed shortly, the UP implies it to ‘contain’ vacuum
energy in the form of virtual particles but clocks are observed to run at a slower pace,
23
particles to oscillate at a slower frequency, to have a lower energy and hence a less
definite distance as they are more distant, then spacetime is less defined as seen from
a larger distance, so if time is observed to pass at a slower pace at larger distances,
then our interaction or observation horizon can be localized at that distance at which
we observe time to pass at an infinitesimal pace the point being that unlike in a BBU,
in a SCU space is not something which is about the same everywhere as the universe
then would have some particular property a definite graininess, say as a whole.
In a SCU we are not allowed to imagine looking at the universe from the outside and
speak about its properties but, as it only exists as seen from within, have to specify the
observer/ observing particle when describing the universe she / it observes.
WHILE THE CLASSICAL assumption that particle properties only are the cause of forces
implies that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations (or rather,
because we assume that there is an objective reality, we came to believe that their
properties only are the cause of interactions); if when their properties are cause and
effect of their interactions means that their communication is instant, then there is no
longer a single, objective reality which causally precedes its observation, meaning that,
at particle level, an observation affects the observed. While there is a classical observer
effect like when we put a cold thermometer in cup of tea, we cool the tea so measure
too low a temperature; this is a quantum mechanical effect: an instantaneity effect.
As the rest energy of a particle in CM only is the cause of interactions, it is an absolute,
objective quantity, something which causally precedes its observation and BFPD can be
measured from outside the universe. Whereas in a BBU it only is the expression of the
rest energy of a particle in interactions which depends on its distance and motion as it
has an autonomous existence so would keep existing even when isolated, prevented to
express its existence; as in a SCU particles are source and product of their interactions,
their properties don’t causally precede, predetermine their expression as they do in a
BBU. Though the rest energy of a particle is invariant as a change requires a change of
the energy of all particles to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it
contributes which takes much energy to temporarily achieve; the finding that it is
invariant does not mean that it is an interaction independent quantity, only the cause
of forces if only because in that case the force it exerts wouldn’t then also depend on
the rest energy of the particle it acts upon which the inverse square law says it isn’t.
The problem with the idea of particle properties as intrinsic, interaction independent
quantities, as being only the cause of forces is that they cannot then gain anything by
behaving in some particular manner, by contracting at places rather than move apart,
say, so they wouldn’t be able to interact, feel and exert force at all so it wouldn’t be
properties and there would exist no particles, no universe. If, on the other hand, their
properties are cause and effect of their interactions so would vary with the conditions
they create, find themselves in, then it similarly wouldn’t be properties.
As will be discussed, it proves to be gravity together with the fact that in a SCU energy
is quantized and their communication is instantaneous which provides particles with
the backbone to preserve their identity, yet enable them to interact and gradually,
sometimes in fits and starts, evolve to everhigher densities, i.e., (UP) energies.
As in nature, in physics, everything is about energy as particles only can be said to exist
if they have the energy (whatever kind of stuff it may turn out to be) to communicate
their existence, to express and simultaneously preserve their, each other’s energy, we
can imagine the evolution of a particle to start with an infinitesimal, nonzero energy,
24
an energy so low that its presence cannot be distinguished from its absence, its non
existence and the position it acts from, its whereabouts is almost completely indefinite.
As the energy it is observed to have also depends on the energy of the observing
particle, their distance and relative motion, its energy the evolutionary phase it is
observed to be in is a relative quantity, different to identical observing particles at
different distances, so in a SCU it cannot, as BBC, be said to have a definite beginning in
(cosmic) time, to have an objective age as in a BBU its existence doesn’t depend on
whether or not it actually is observed to exist.
Though a SCU by definition cannot have a beginning, be in any particular evolutionary
phase as a whole; that doesn’t mean that particles cannot acquire energy, evolve to
elementary particles, to higher energies, contract to stars and galaxies and eventually
end up in the black holes at the center of galaxies, that particles and galaxies cannot
evolve in time without this implying that the universe has a beginning a whole and
grows older in cosmic time at the same pace everywhere not only because there is no
universewide now, but also because this universe only exists as seen from within so
we cannot speak about its properties and state as a whole, how it might look in the
global view as in a BBU, but have to specify the observer / observing particle when
describing not the universe but his / its universe.
If it cannot be in any particular state as a whole, then the universe of any observer or
observing particle at all times must contain objects in all possible phases of their
evolution even though not all phases are accessible to observation by all observers /
observing particles as what an observing particle observes also depends on its own
energy. The lower its energy, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it is in itself, the lower
it observes the energy to be of the galaxies within its interaction horizon, its universe,
the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it observes these galaxies, its universe to be in.
If a particle owes its energy to particles at all distances, then its energy is the sum, the
superposition of all wavelengths it exchanges energy in with all these particles: the
more distant they are or the lower their energy is, the longer the wavelength in which
they contribute to its energy, the less they contribute to its energy, the lower it
observes their energy to be, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it observes them to be
in; the higher their energy or the shorter their distance is, the shorter the wavelength
they exchange energy in with the particle, the more they contribute to its energy.
Unlike in a BBU where we see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the
past; in a SCU we observe the galaxy as it is when we look at, not as it is, of itself, but as
we observe it to be in what only to us is the present.
If time in a SCU is observed to pass at a slower pace at larger distances so galaxies are
observed to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are more distant, then
particles at the rim of each other’s interaction horizon,1 each other’s universe see each
other evolve, time pass at the other particle at an infinitely slow pace. The farther
apart, the (s)lower the frequency they exchange energy at, the lower the energy they
observe each other to have, the weaker they interact, the less to one particle the
existence of the other particle is distinguishable from its nonexistence. The farther
apart, the less their IH’s, their universes coincide, overlap, the longer the wavelength
they exchange energy in, the less definite to one particle the position and motion of
the other particle is, the vaguer, the less defined, developed, evolved they observe
1 While in a BBU the interaction / observation horizon of a particle is a sharp boundary which, if we were
to ignore the expansion of space, would lie at a distance equal to the speed of light times the age of the
universe; as in a SCU the communication between particles is instant, there is no such sharp, fundamental
boundary: here the interactions between particles fades out gradually with their distance, the frequency
they exchange energy at slowing down with distance without ever completely stopping.
25
each other’s properties to be as expressed in their behavior, so if we may associate a
less evolved state with an ‘earlier’ phase of its evolution, then they observe each other
to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are farther apart and/or their own
energy is lower.
The lower the rest energy of a particle, the weaker the force it feels from the objects in
its environment, to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes,
the less energy is involved in a displacement or acceleration, the lower it observes their
energy to be, the less definite it observes their position and motion to be and the less
definite its own position and motion is, the less, to the particle, spacetime is defined in
the area where it can be localized, the more to the particle all positions in a larger area
are physically, energetically identical, indistinguishable, the less definite it observes the
position of a particle in that area to be, the lower it observes its mass to be.1
If particles tend to evolve to everhigher energies but the energy a particle is observed
to have, the frequency it is observed to oscillate at also depends on the rest energy of
the observing particle, their distance and relative motion, then there always will be
particles at the rim of its observation horizon it observes to be in their ‘earliest,’ lowest
energy phase of their evolution so, as far as it makes sense to speak about the creation,
the beginning of a particle, it is not an event which can be thought of as having been
finished, completed in the past, to have happened at a definite moment in cosmic time
as in a BBU: if there is no universewide present in a SCU present, then there also is no
universewide past and future, no single, objective universewide reality which is the
same to all observers everywhere.
The lower the energy of the observing particle or the more distant it is, the lower the
energy it observes the objects in its environment to have, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary
phase it observes its universe to be in, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it is in itself.
As its energy is the sum, the superposition of all wavelengths it exchanges energy in
with particles at all distances, a particle or galaxy is observed to have a different
energy, to be in a different evolutionary phase by identical observing particles at
different distances, the state a particle ort galaxy is in similarly can be thought of as a
superposition of states, of evolutionary phases whereby it depends on the rest energy
of the observing particle, its distance and motion relative to the observed in what
evolutionary phase it observes the particle or galaxy to be in. Put differently, whereas
in a BBU any present evolutionary phase of an object makes place for the next so the
previous phase ought to have vanished from the universe, into the past; in a SCU any
previous state remains an active part of (the superposition of states it is in) any later
phase keeping in mind that as there is no universewide now, there also is no single,
universewide reality in a SCU, no unique, privileged observer whose observations are
more true than those of any other observer.
Whereas in a universe where it is the same time, where time passes at the same pace
everywhere, particle A observes particle B as B was, of itself, in a more distant past as
they are farther apart, in the past due to what in a BBU is a finite light velocity; as the
communication between particles in a SCU is instant, A observes B as B is at the time of
the observation: not as B is, of itself, but as it is observed to be by A, in what only to A
is the present (i.e., the time we investigate what A might observe).
1 The greater the mass of a black hole is the less indefinite the position is from which its energy acts as a
source of gravity, of its mass center and the smaller the radius is of a circular orbit about the hole, the less
all positions of that orbit differ, physically to an observing particle in that orbit, the less it can be at rest,
have a welldefined position on that path, the higher its velocity must be and / or the smaller its radius is
observed to be from a position where the gravitational field of the hole is weaker.
26
While B’s properties in CM are objective quantities, causally preceding their expression
in interactions so shouldn’t in any way depend on A, on the observing particle it only is
the observation of B’s state and properties which ought to depend on A’s energy,
distance and motion; as B in a SCU owes its energy to all other particles within its IH,
including to A, part of what A observes is the effect of A’s own presence upon B’s state
and properties, so B doesn’t, as in a BBU, just look different to different observers but
is a (more or less) different object to different observing particles.
So whereas BBC assumes that there is a single, unique, objective, universewide reality
all objects and observers live in so all observers everywhere agree on what it they see
when they account for the effects on their observation of their distance and motion
relative to the observed, a reality which causally precedes its observation and which
only for practical difficulties cannot actually be observed from outside the universe; in
a universe which has no external reality but only exists as seen from within, there are
as many (more or less) different realities universes as there are different observers or
observing particles. So if when, as will be discussed in § 6, a particle or atom can be in
different states simultaneously, its energy is a superposition of energies, its state a
superposition of states, of evolutionary phases, then that is because it expresses and
preserves its properties the state we observe it to be in by exchanging energy with
particles at all distances, which observe it to have a different energy, be in a different
state, and are themselves observed to be in a different state or evolutionary phase by
the particle, depending on their own rest energy, distance and motion relative to it.
AS IN THE classical view the rest energy of a particle only is the cause of its interactions,
it at all times should have a perfectly defined position and momentum, both should be
measurable to an arbitrary accuracy at the same time: except for the classical observer
effect, a measurement of one should not affect the magnitude of the other.
However, according to the uncertainty principle, the uncertainty or indefiniteness in
the position of a particle is smaller as that in its momentum is greater and vice versa:
the smaller the space it is confined to, the less indefinite its position is, the greater the
indefiniteness in its momentum is i.e., the greater its rate of change is, the faster it
alternately accelerates and decelerates and changes its direction of motion inside that
smaller volume, the higher its energy is.
Now if energy is a source of gravity and we take the gravitational force it exerts as a
measure of its mass and we may call any source of gravity ‘mass,’ then the mass of
particles should increase as they confine each other to a smaller volume of space, as
they contract at places to clusters of particles, to mass concentrations provided that
space itself isn’t affected, warped itself by the energy of the particles.
Now if for reasons which will become clear (and contrary to custom) we define the
distance between particles as being less indefinite as there is more energy involved in a
change of their distance per unit distance which it is as their distance is smaller1 then
the UP is another way of saying that, in a universe where the energy of particles is
cause and effect of forces between them, their energy the energy they observe each
other to have increases as (the indefiniteness in) their distance decreases, as forces
between them increase, as they contract to clusters which they will for reasons to be
discussed in the next section.
As energy in a SCU is something which lives within particle interactions, as particles
alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist, to express and at the same
time preserve their, each other’s energy so the net energy of the universe is zero, they
can create themselves, each other out of nothing without violating conservation laws.
If when their energy is source and product of their interactions (with all particles within
1 The exception is the strong force, which seems to decrease at shorter distances.
27
their IH), of forces between them forces which increase as they contract so the energy
they observe each other to have is higher, the wavelength in which they exchange
energy is shorter, less indefinite, and energy is a source of gravity, then their mass
should increase as they contract to clusters.
This is contrary to the classical view where, as particles in some mysterious manner
were endowed with a definite rest mass at their creation at the big bang where their
mass only is the cause of forces and gravity is an attractive force so it takes energy to
pull them apart so reversely, there is energy liberated, radiated away as they contract
to stars and galaxies, their mass should decrease as they contract to stars and galaxies.
However, if the UP insists that the energy of particles increases as (the indefiniteness
in) their distance decreases, as they contract, as they confine each other to a smaller
space i.e., if energy is a stronger source of gravity as the position it acts from is less
indefinite and vice versa, if the rest energy of an object is higher as the position of its
mass center is less indefinite) and we take the gravitational force objects exert as felt
by a test particle as observed from the same distance as a measure of its mass, then
the mass of the particles should increase as they contract to clusters.
If the force particles which are in the process of evolving to elementary particles feel
from the center of the cluster they contract to only can increase as much as it increases
from the opposite direction, from particles in the outer layers of their own cluster and
beyond, of neighboring clusters, as the energy the observe each other to have in one
cluster only can increase if the energy increases of neighboring clusters, then particles
only can contract to clusters (of clusters) if they do so everywhere, in concert.
As the speed of light is the same everywhere as measured locally, the gravitational
time dilation inside a gravitational field a clock inside the field is observed to run at a
slower pace as the field at the clock is stronger than it is at the observer implies a
proportional length contraction, meaning that the distance between an observer at a
position where the field is negligible and the mass center of the source of the field as
measured inside the field is larger than as measured outside of it i.e., as calculated
from the positions of the observer and source relative to surrounding objects stars,
say if we ignore the effect of their gravitational field on their observed distance.
Now if according to the UP the energy of particles increases as they contract, and with
it the energy, the mass of the cluster they contract to but the increased strength of its
gravitational field constitutes an increased distance between the observer and the
mass center of the cluster as measured inside the field compared to their distance as
‘measured’ outside of it, then the mass of the cluster as inferred from the gravitational
force it exerts seems to be smaller so if we ignore this effect, we may not notice its
mass increase an effect which is greater as the position of its mass center is less
indefinite, as the object is more massive and compact.
The crucial difference is that while the rest energy of particles in BBC only is the cause
of interactions so is unrelated to space, as the concept ‘energy density of the universe’
defines energy and space as independent quantities (even though this is at odds with
the fact that energy curves space and that its energy content is supposed to determine
its expansion rate not to mention that, as its density could have any value at all, it
cannot be understood even in principle why it has the value it has); as in a SCU it is
localized energy which turns an abstract, mathematical space a space devoid of
energy where it would be the same time, time pass at the same pace everywhere if it
would make sense to say that time passes in a completely empty space, where all
points are identical except for their arbitrarily assigned coordinate numbers (arbitrary
as the distance between successive coordinate numbers isn’t defined, i.e., related to
28
the length of its unit, the meter) into a real, physical spacetime, which makes positions
at different distances physically, energetically different, distinguishable to a test
particle, which makes that the pace of clocks and length of rods is observed to differ
from one distance to the next, here the creation of energy is (indistinguishable from,
accompanied by) the creation not of space in time, as in a BBU but of spacetime.
In assuming that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations that the
rest energy of particles only is the cause of interactions, unrelated to space so energy
and space in BBC only are superficially related in the sense that it only is its expression
in interactions which depends on their distance and relative motion we state that
space already exists even before there is energy as opposed to a SCU where the
selfcreation of energy is the creation of spacetime, a creation which doesn’t violate any
conservation law.
Though the UP implies that what appears to be empty space is filled to the brim with
virtual particles, the quanta of all kinds of fields
… the whole of spacetime is occupied by the fields of the elementary particles. Even in the
absence of matter, the fields of the virtual particles constitutes an allpervasive
background which can in no way be eliminated. In fact, matter is only a small perturbation
of it. This background … can be looked upon as a modern ether. Since it possesses no net
energy it makes no contribution to curvature ... but it does suggest the a priori existence
of spacetime, which matter merely modifies and does not create.1
in a SCU this vacuum energy doesn’t exist prior to the presence of matter, of localized
energy which is to cause space to curve, nor can its density be a property of spacetime
as the universe then would have some particular property as a whole.
The idea of a space which exists, which ‘contains’ vacuum energy in the form of virtual
particles even before there is matter consisting of real elementary particles also is at
odds with the supposition of BBC that all particles of the standard model were created
readymade at or shortly into the big bang quote marks on contains as in a SCU it isn’t
so that space exists, is defined even when devoid of energy, something waiting to be
filled with stuff. As in BBC their rest energy only is the cause of forces, here particles
have a boundary surface separating (any kind of charge which contributes to, which is a
manifestation) of their energy from (its effect upon) space so it are fremdkörper in an
alien space, here we only can say that space contains, is filled with all kinds of particles
if space exists, if the meter is defined even when devoid of energy; in a SCU energy,
space and time are intrinsically related, as one doesn’t exist without the other, the
selfcreation of energy is the creation not of space in time but of spacetime.
IF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES in a SCU are wave phenomena, then the virtual particles the
UP says space ‘contains’ may be the volatile interference products of the real particles
of stars and galaxies: the quanta of their gravitational field so their energy should be
lower, their position less definite farther from the source of the field, as space is
emptier, farther from masses even though what appears to be a uniform large scale
mass distribution in the universe may smooth out such gradients far from individual
galaxy clusters so space looks flat at this scale and is only curved near galaxies.
Whereas the UP in the present, causal view is interpreted to say that the density of the
vacuum energy of empty space is the same everywhere (which presupposes that time
passes at the same pace everywhere), that it is a property of space as the energy of its
1 Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001), Wolfgang Rindler 2nd edition p 244
If this this vacuum energy background would possess no net energy, then it cannot be identified as the
dark energy which is to drive what appears to be the accelerating expansion of the big bang universe.
29
quanta, of the virtual particles is supposed to be only the cause of whatever effects
they are supposed to cause like driving the hypothetic exponential expansion of the
universe shortly after the big bang and, some 9 billion years later, the accelerating
expansion of the universe, to exert a repulsive, antigravitational force between masses.
To save the big bang tale, to explain how its rate of expansion can vary so enormously
a short burst of an exponential expansion shortly into the big bang followed by some
nine billion years of decelerating expansion due to gravity after which its expansion for
some unfathomable reason suddenly starts to accelerate again, this vacuum aka zero
point aka dark energy aka cosmological constant (denoted by Λ) has been recruited to
drive this expansion by saying that it is an intrinsic property of space, which is at odds
with the fact that to fit observations its energy density the nature of space must be
different in different epochs, meaning that the UP from which its density is derived
says different things at different times and we haven’t explained anything.
The reasoning how this vacuum energy can drive the expansion goes like this.1
If we think of space as some kind of gas with pressure P and it takes a container inside
of it filled with gas an amount of work −PdV to expand its volume V to V + dV, but its
increased volume contains an increased amount of vacuum energy ρ(V + dV) to keep
its expansion going, with ρ its density, then P = −ρ: the higher its density, the higher its
rate of expansion. As space can be thought of as divided into adjoining expanding
containers, Λ drives the inflation and accelerated expansion, acting as a repulsive, anti
gravitational kind of energy against the attractive, gravitational energy of masses.
This doesn’t only contradict the idea that the quanta of the vacuum energy are
intrinsically related to the properties of the elementary particles of ordinary matter:
According to QFT [quantum field theory] the universe is made up of matter fields, whose
quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons
(e.g. photons and gluons). All these fields have zeropoint energy. Recent experiments
advocate the idea that particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the
underlying quantum vacuum, and that all properties of matter are merely vacuum
fluctuations arising from interactions of the zeropoint field.2
so you’d expect this vacuum energy to drive an attractive force; another problem is
that its observed value is some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than calculated.3
However, as a force in a SCU cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, if the
energy of particles, real and virtual, is cause and effect of interactions, then we cannot
think of energy as if it comes in 57 2 independent varieties, an attractive and repulsive
kind: that only would be possible required to ‘explain’ the expansion if their energy
only would be the cause but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions.
If in a SCU the particles of the vacuum energy aren’t only the interference products of
the real particles of galaxies, the quanta of their gravitational field, and the field itself is
a source of gravity so the virtual particles of this vacuum energy have mass and belong
to the mass of galaxies (the farther from a galaxy, the less they belong to, contribute to
its energy, the lower their energy), then the effects their presence by BBC is ordered to
cause already is accounted for in the mass of galaxies so cannot cause space to expand.
Obviously, as a SCU cannot have some particular property, be in any particular state as
a whole, as it has no universewide now empty space spacetime cannot have some
particular vacuum energy density as a whole, its value be the same at all distances.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant (1932019)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeropoint_energy (342020)3 https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.17850
30
As this universe only exists as seen from within, it only can be described its energy
density quantified from within so we must specify the observer / observing particle
when describing what she / it observes. If clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a
slower pace, the frequency at which the virtual particles of empty space oscillate is
lower, their energy observed to be lower, their distance to be less definite at larger
distances an observed pace, an observed energy which is lower as the rest energy of
the observing particle is lower then space cannot have the same energy density at the
same time, space be defined to the same extent at all distances. The more distant and
/ or the lower the energy of the observing particle, the lower it observes the virtual
particles of the vacuum energy to be, the less to the observing particle one distance
differs from the next, the less defined spacetime is from its own point of view.
In a SCU space spacetime is less defined at larger distances as opposed to the present,
classical view where spacetime space is defined down to the Planck length (which is
where the huge calculated energy density of Λ comes from), as if the universe can have
a definite graininess of space and time, implying that space and time the length of the
meter and duration of the second are defined even outside the universe: that it lives
in a spacetime space and time realm not of its own making.
THE FARTHER APART two electrically charged pointparticles are, the longer the wave
length they exchange energy in, the less energy the wave carries, the less definite the
distance between two successive crests or troughs is, the less definite the wavelength
of the wave is, the less definite their distance is, the less to one particle the exact
position and behavior of the other particles matters, energetically, the less definite its
observed position and motion are, the less definite the lower, the poorer the quality
is of the information the wave carries between the particles, the less definite they
observe each other’s position and motion to be and with it the properties one particle
might infer the other to have from its behavior. If so, if particles exchange energy in a
longer, less definite wavelength as they are they are farther apart,1 then this opens the
possibility that violins are tuned differently elsewhere. That is, we cannot think of a
SCU as composed of regions where the properties of elementary particles are different,
as a conglomerate of different subuniverses as this would mean that it is qualitatively
different, of itself, in different regions, in which case it would be the ordinary object it
by definition isn’t: in a SCU two particles have less in common, their properties are less
related as the part of their energy they owe to and contribute to each other is smaller,
as their interactions weaker as their IH’s, their universes coincide, overlap less without
this meaning that it are qualitatively different objects. If, on the other hand we were to
associate a lower observed energy, less definite properties with an ‘earlier’ phase of
their evolution to elementary particles, then we might say that they observe each
other to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are farther apart.
If so, then particles ejected in supernova explosions at large distances may in the
course of time immigrate to our observable universe: if they owe the main part of their
energy to the particles with which they evolved elsewhere so interact weakly with
indigenous particles of our part of the universe, then it would be candidates for one
kind of dark matter, the other kind possibly being the indigenous virtual particles which
are in the process of evolving to the elementary particles of what to us is ordinary
matter, but the energy of which as yet is too low to be detected except gravitationally.
1 This would be a distance redshift if not for the fact that the wave doesn’t lose energy, stretches, shifts its
wavelength to red as it travels, since unlike in a BBU, in a SCU their communication is instant over any
spacetime distance.
31
If, as will be discussed in § 7, the properties of elementary particles in a SCU cannot
causally precede, predetermine those of the subatomic particles, of stars nor the other
way around, then this suggests that their evolution to elementary particles, to the
constituents of atomic nuclei and atoms, the formation of elements already starts,
coincides with the formation of the ‘first’ stars and galaxies, especially if ‘all properties
of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions of the zeropoint
field,’ including elements which apparently cannot be synthesized in stars if we keep in
mind that quantum tunneling shows that particles can jump energy barriers they
classically cannot cross. However small the probability is of such events, given enough
time they eventually should be formed in observable quantities even though they may
in the ‘earliest’ phase of their evolution, disintegrate at almost the same rate: if the
zeropoint energy ‘whose quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force
fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g. photons and gluons),’ then it cannot be excluded
that they can form virtual atomic nuclei, volatile spatial configurations resembling
those of the different particle species in different atomic nuclei, configurations which
in stars are forged to stable atomic nuclei and atoms.
IF THE GRAVITATIONAL field of a particle is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as seen
from outside its field, if (GTD) time is observed to pass at a slower pace where the field
is stronger so spacetime seems to be more viscous frozen in time nearer to its mass
center, then it is its field which opposes the penetration of other particles of tiny
fingers trying to pinch it, so to say which grants it the tangibility which, together with
its inertia, we associate with a solid, massive object quote marks on condensed as it
wrongly suggests that its mass warps an already existing amount of space: though it
does curve spacetime in its vicinity; it is itself also a local extension of spacetime.
The point is that a particle in a SCU has no boundary surface separating its energy from
(its effect upon) spacetime, that there is nothing special at its center which causes it to
behave in some specific manner:1 it only is the strength of its gravitational field, its
observed energy density2 which increases nearer to its mass center without becoming
infinite at its center as would be the case if, as in CM, its rest energy would only be the
cause of its interactions. In a SCU the energy content in some area can be expressed as
the extent to which the pace of clocks and length of rods is observed to vary from one
distance to its mass center to the next as measured outside its gravitational field, as
calculated from the position of its mass center relative to surrounding particles.
It is because the rest energy of particles in BBC is unrelated to space and time why, to
increase the distance between the particles created at the big bang or, at later times,
of galaxy clusters against gravity between them why one had to invent a repulsive kind
of energy to make the universe expand, the problem being that as the relative amounts
of the different kinds of energy could have been different, BBC cannot explain even in
principle why these amounts are what they are, why the rate of expansion of space is
what it is (supposed to be), why there is a universe, how it can create itself.
If the value of some quantity cannot be inferred from first principle, then that may be
because it is irrelevant, that it isn’t part of the answer why the universe is as it is, for
understanding how it can create itself. If some fundamental problems refuse to be
1 Well, as will be discussed in § 7, as in a SCU the behavior of particles relative to each other is cause and
effect of their properties, different properties, kinds of charge originate in the different, independent ways
particles can move relative to each other.2 That is, the magnitudes of its energy divided by the volume it occupies, its volume measured outside its
gravitational field.
32
solved despite efforts of generations of physicist, then that isn’t necessarily because
they are way too complicated to be solved but because it are pseudo problems arising
from the belief that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations at
quantum level, that the universe has been created by some outside intervention,
because we conceive of it, try to comprehend it as an ordinary object, to reverse
engineer it causally from the point of view of its Creator instead of rationally. 1
THE ATTRACTION BETWEEN particles only can increase as much as the counterforce it
meets or is able to evoke. As according to the UP their energy increases as (the
indefiniteness in) their distance decreases as they contract to clusters (and clusters of
clusters) and energy is a source of gravity, then the mass of the cluster increases as it
contracts, the mass its particles have according to each other, so we might say that for
gravity to seem to be an exclusively attractive force it needs the UP to act as a counter
force: that gravity and the UP are the two sides of a single coin.
Whereas classically the energy conservation law says that the energy increase of the
cluster and its particles must be supplied by the environment if particles are to contract
to clusters; as Newton’s 3rd law only says that the force the particles feel from the
center of their cluster must be equal to the force they feel from opposite directions,
from the outer layers of their own cluster and neighboring clusters, the only condition
for particles to be able to contract to clusters if they contract to clusters (and clusters
of clusters) everywhere, in concert which requires their communication to be instant.
In other words, while the creation of a big bang universe is incomprehensible because
it violates the law according to which energy cannot be created nor destroyed; there is
no such limitation, no conservation law is violated, especially as the energy of particles
in a SCU is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, as positive in one phase as it is negative.
However, it isn’t so that, as in BBC, particles contract to clusters, mass concentrations
just by moving through space, in time: if in SCU the increase of the energy of particles
and clusters increases, if the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime and the
gravitational field of the particles and clusters increases as their energy increases, then
this results in an increase of the distance between the clusters as measured inside their
gravitational field, from the mass center of one cluster to that of the other. If as seen
from outside the field in, the field is an area of condensed spacetime and most of the
created spacetime is localized near to the mass center of the cluster (if we say that its
energy acts from that point), then such creation of spacetime may not be conspicuous
enough to be observed and contradict the classical assumption that the mass of
particles decreases as they contract to clusters which it should if their rest mass only
would be the cause, and not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions.
In other words, the creation, the increase of their energy is payed and cashed for by
the creation of spacetime, by the increase of the spacetime distance between their
mass centers as measured from inside their gravitational field.
We can only say that gravity is an exclusively attractive force if there is an equally
strong opposition to it, meaning, for example, that if the electric repulsion between
two protons is great, then so must be the force pushing or keeping them close together
or, if they stay far apart when left alone, the electric force is as weak as the opposition
to it gravity provides: only if their properties would be the cause of their interactions
can we say that one force is stronger, of itself, than the other. If, depending on
1 So one can, as in string theory (ST) get lost in a math which approaches the universe from the point of
view of its Creator, making things more complicated than nature, while ingenious, would invent itself.
33
circumstances, forces between particles nevertheless appear to be either attractive or
repulsive, then that is because we encounter them out of the high temperature, high
pressure conditions in which they evolved to elementary particles. If particles of all
species have to keep exchanging energy to express and preserve their, each other’s,
apparently qualitatively different properties even outside the stars they were forged in,
in which they acquired their properties, then their properties, the behavior they exhibit
in the far less extreme conditions in ordinary matter may appear to be only the cause
of forces, forces to be either attractive or repulsive even though this is at odds with
the fact that the force a particle exerts also depends on the energy, distance and
motion of the particle it acts upon.
Though one may object that the counterforce to gravity between protons in a star is
their electric repulsion and has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle; as gravity
causes the extreme, high temperature, high pressure conditions in stars which makes
them collide at sufficiently high energies that their distance becomes small enough for
the (attractive) strong nuclear force to kick in, to overcome their electric repulsion and
bind them in atomic nuclei, gravity does overcome their electric repulsion even though
bot forces have an infinite range, so gravity isn’t the weak force it is portrayed to be.
As gravity is the expression of the tendency of energy in a SCU to increase, to keep
crating itself and any kind of charge contributes to, is a manifestation of the energy of
particles,1 then we can even say that their electric charge assist in pressing protons
closer together in stars.
It is the same principle which prevents that we fall through the floor as the pressure of
our feet forces the protons and electrons of the floor closer together, making their
position less indefinite so the indefiniteness in their momenta increases and with it the
energy to push against the sole of our shoe, so we might say that it is our stepping on
the floor which increases the effective magnitude of their electric charge.
AS PARTICLE PROPERTIES in CM only are the cause of forces, the different properties,
kinds of charge of particles are thought to power qualitatively different, independent
forces of nature, so here a force is either attractive or repulsive, of itself, always, no
matter whether or not there is an equal counterforce to oppose it. By contrast, if in a
SCU any charge contributes to and is an expression of a single quantity, of the rest
energy of particles, if their energy any kind of chargeis cause and effect of forces
between them and their energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next
so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, then the sign of any kind of
charge of particles cannot be a static quantity, either positive or negative, red, blue or
green always, their charge be only the cause of forces.
If the electric and color charge of quarks in baryons would be static, independent
quantities, only the cause of forces, i.e., either attractive or repulsive, depending on
circumstances, then like charged quarks would go sit and stay on top of each other as
soon as their attraction due to their color charge at some distance overcomes their
electric repulsion if the UP wouldn’t prevent this since an infinitesimal uncertainty in
their distance would correspond to an infinite energy they observe each other to have.
If according to the UP their energy increases as their distance decreases and that
energy must be supplied by the environment, then it is the environment (temperature,
pressure) which determines at what distance particles can be at equilibrium: which
determines the effective strength of their electric repulsion and color attraction, the
1 It remains to be seen whether the part in the energy of one kind of charge of a particle can decrease as
the part of other kinds of charge in its energy increases, whether, how its expression varies with its
velocity and direction of motion relative to the observing particle.
34
effective magnitude of their electric and color charge as opposed to the classical view
where it only is their expression as a force which depends on their distance.
Only if their properties are cause and effect of their interactions with all other particles
within their IH can they adjust their attraction and repulsion, the effective magnitude
of these, supposedly qualitatively different, independent, opposite kinds of charge in
such way that they can achieve and maintain a stable equilibrium, form stable matter.
So if according to the UP their energy increases if we decrease their distance, then we
increase both their attraction and repulsion, the effective magnitude of both their
color and electric charge, the energy of the particles these charges are the expression
of which obviously only works if their communication is instant since otherwise a force
can be unequal to the counterforce it meets.
AS THE GRAVITATIONAL time dilation / length contraction inside the gravitational field
of an object let’s, for example, take a black hole as any gravitational effects are much
more pronounced than in other, less compact and heavy objects1 makes rods look
shorter and clocks run at a slower pace deeper inside the field as the field is stronger,
the field is an area of curved, ‘condensed’2 spacetime as seen from outside the field,
from a vantage point where the field is weak. As seen in one direction, from the mass
center of an observing particle at a position where the hole’s field is weak, its distance
to the mass center of the black hole therefore is much larger than it is as measured
outside the gravitational field of the hole, so field of the hole increases the distance to
its mass center, from which its mass acts upon the observing particle: in this direction
the field in effect dilutes the expression of its own mass, decreasing the gravitational
force it exerts on the observing particle, on neighboring masses as if to distantiate itself
literally from them, as if to minimize its interactions with other masses which may be
why gravity seems to be so weak a force.
However, as seen from the opposite direction, from inside the field out, from the mass
center of the black hole, the same field the same GTD accelerates the pace at which
clocks outside the field are observed to run, the frequency particles are observed to
oscillate at, enhancing their energy, the mass of the objects in its environment as if to
make up for the forcediluting / distanceincreasing effects the field has as seen from
the outside in. Such effects are more pronounced as the position of the mass center of
its source is less indefinite as more of its energy is localized within what as seen from
outside its gravitational field is a smaller volume as in the case of a black hole or at an
extremely short distance from an elementary particle.
While the classical idea that the rest mass of particles only is the cause of interactions
makes it impossible to understand the origin of mass even in principle and leads to
infinite forces and interaction energies and gravitational singularities, places where the
gravitational field becomes infinite, like at the center of black holes in a BBU; if the
uncertainty principle insists that the energy of particles increases as they contract, then
this opens the possibility of a creation of energy, of mass ex nihilo, without violating
any conservation law.
1 And keep in mind that a black hole in a SCU is different from what it is in a BBU, about which more later.2 Quote marks as it isn’t so that the source of the field causes an already existing volume of space to
contract within what as seen from outside the field is a smaller volume as it is its own energy which makes
positions at different distances physically different, which creates what as seen from inside the field is a
larger distance. As a particle in a SCU has no boundary surface separating its energy from (its effect on)
spacetime, not only its gravitational field, but its mass itself is an area of condensed spacetime.
35
Fig. 1 Gravitational singularity in a black hole 1
If we define the indefiniteness in the position of the mass center of an object as smaller
as more of its energy is localized within what as seen from outside its gravitational field
looks like a smaller space, then the position of the mass center of a black hole is much
less indefinite than that of a star of equal mass. If we draw a graph of how the strength
of the gravitational field, its gravitational potential varies with distance from the mass
center of the source as measured outside the field, then the gravity well of the black
hole looks much narrower and deeper than that of the star.
If we were to draw a series of concentric spheres about the center of the star and black
hole in such manner that the energy involved in the displacement of a massive test
particle is equal between any two successive spheres, then we would see the distances
between the surfaces of successive spheres decrease nearer to its mass center, be it
that these distances decrease much more rapidly near the hole’s mass center than they
do near the center of a star, that there are far more spheres collected within what as
seen from outside its gravitational field is a smaller volume near the center of the black
hole than there are near the center of the star.
As the difference in the pace at which clocks run at the surfaces of any two successive
spheres is equal, the spacetime distance between the observer and the mass center of
the black hole (from which we assume its energy gravitationally acts on objects in the
environment) is much greater than it is in the case of the star, so the field of the black
hole constitutes a much larger volume of spacetime within what as seen from outside
the field is a smaller space than the field of the star.
If we only can compare the mass of a star and black hole if we measure it from the
same distance if we measure it outside their gravitational field, if we infer it from the
position of the black hole or star and the observer relative to surrounding stars then
the star and black hole can have the same mass (exert an equal gravitational force at
the same distance), while as measured inside the gravitational field, the spacetime
distance from the observer to the mass center of the black hole is much greater than
his distance to the mass center of the star. So whereas the position of the mass center
of the black hole is much less indefinite than that of the star of equal mass relative to
the observer as measured outside their field, as calculated from the positions of the
hole or star and the observer relative to surrounding stars; if as measured inside the
field, the distance of the observer to the mass center of the black hole is much larger
than it is to the star, then the position of the mass center of the star and black hole of
equal mass is equally (in)definite. In this text the rest energy of an object is defined as
being higher as the position it acts from is less indefinite, as more of its energy can be
localized within what as seen from outside its gravitational field is a smaller volume.
As in the classical view the mass of a black hole only is the cause of the gravitational
force it exerts, in GR, in BBC it has a gravitational singularity at its center, a point where
1https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/photo.html?images/blackholes_singularity.jpg&A%20gravitation
al%20singularity%20is%20hidden%20within%20a%20black%20hole
36
its energy density, its gravitational field is infinite which it only can be if energy and
space are independent quantities. While the singularity is thought to contain all mass
of the hole1 and to act upon, to cause the surrounding space to curve warping a space
which already exists even in its absence, a space ‘which matter merely modifies and
does not create;’ in a universe where it is localized energy which makes points at
different distances physically different, which turns an imaginary, abstract2 space into a
real, physical spacetime, where a gravitational field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime
as seen from outside the field, where energy, space and time are intrinsically related, a
black hole cannot have a gravitational singularity nor event horizon, for that matter.
In a selfcreating universe the energy of a particle or black hole is ‘stored’ in the extent
to which the length of rods and pace of clocks is observed to vary with their distance to
its mass center as seen from outside their gravitational field. If there’s no fundamental,
infinitely sharp boundary between the rest energy of an elementary particle or black
hole and (its effect upon) spacetime means that its gravitational field ‘contains’ energy,
if it is its energy which makes positions at different distances from its mass center
physically different, then it isn’t so that, as in the classical view, mass causes an already
existing space to curve, as if space and time exist even in a universe devoid of energy
and that the presence of mass only changes the observed length of rods and pace of
clocks in its vicinity. Though it does curve an already existing spacetime (as shaped by
masses at all distances); the hole, its field also it is itself an extension of spacetime.
The steeper, the higher the field gradient is (the rate of change of the gravitational
potential with distance to its source3) the more its energy density the observed length
of rods and pace clocks varies from one point, one distance to its source to the next
within what as seen from outside the field is a smaller distance to its mass center, the
more the field slows down the pace of events inside of it as if spacetime is more
viscous, more solid, so to say while at larger distances the field gradient decreases.
The farther from masses, the less points over a larger area differ physically, the
emptier spacetime is, the more time would be observed to pass at the same pace
everywhere in the global view in a SCU we may not imagine looking at the universe
from the outside as it only exists as seen from within the more the area is part of the
common spacetime as shaped by masses at all distances.
Carlo Rovelli:4
In Newtonian physics, if we take away the dynamical entities,5 what remains is space and
time. In relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The
space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of … the
gravitational field. … As Whitehead put it, we cannot say that we can have spacetime
without dynamical entities, any more than saying that we can have the cat’s grin without
the cat. … The world is made by fields. Physically, these do not live on spacetime. They
live, so to say, on one another. Not anymore fields on spacetime, just fields on fields. …
In prerelativistic physics, spacetime is a fixed nondynamical entity over which physics
happens. It is a sort of structured container which is the home of the world. In relativistic
physics, there is nothing of the sort. There are only interacting fields and particles: the
only notion of localization which is present in the theory is relative: dynamical objects can
1 If its gravitational field contains energy, acts as a source of gravity, it can be said to contain mass: if the
energy of the field is part of the energy of the hole, then it contains part of the mass of the black hole.2 A mathematical space, where time would pass at the same pace everywhere if it would make sense to
speak about the passing of time in a space devoid of energy.3 As measured outside its field, with a rigid measurer the length of which isn’t affected by the field.4 Quantum Gravity (Dec. 30, 2003) Carlo Rovelli p. 53 55 http://www.cpt.univmrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf5 Particles and fields.
37
be localized only with respect to one another. … Einstein’s discovery is that Newtonian
spacetime and the gravitational field, are the same entity. This can be expressed in two
equivalent manners. One is that there is no spacetime: there only is the gravitational
field. The second is that there is no gravitational field: it is spacetime that has dynamical
properties.
Indeed, if a particle in a SCU has no boundary separating its energy from its effect upon
spacetime, if it is its own energy which makes positions at different distances physically
different and energy is a dynamic quantity something the magnitude of which only can
vary in a wavelike manner in space and time if its sign alternates then so is the
spacetime its energy shapes, or rather, represents, is a manifestation of.
So it isn’t that its presence just causes an already existing spacetime to curve in its
vicinity which it does; it also is itself a local extension of spacetime, an area where the
pace of clocks and length of rods varies in tandem with its energy, its rate of change,
within every cycle of its oscillation though there is no sharp boundary between where
the spacetime the particle, its energy represents ends and the common spacetime as
shaped by masses at all distances begins. If we were to say that empty space, far from
masses, in the global view, is about the same everywhere, then the extent to which
positions in empty space are defined, are physically distinguishable, is the product of
the presence of masses at all distances, so it is a more or less common spacetime
more or less as it varies locally, depending on the local mass distribution.
If empty space seems to be about the same everywhere, then that must mean that the
large scale distribution of masses is homogeneous, an observation BBC cannot, as will
be discussed in § 13, explain without resorting to magic, but which in a SCU follows
naturally from the fact that if the mass of particles, of the objects they form is cause
and effect of forces between them, they tend to be at rest at such places or move in
such manner that as seen from their own rest frame, forces are equal in all directions
(or at least in any two opposite directions), this automatically produces what in a BBU
would be a uniform mass distribution but what in a SCU implies that mass of objects
preferably increases, is created at rest relative to the particles to which they owe their
energy and to the energy of which they contribute. As a SCU cannot have particular
properties, be in any single, particular state as a whole, here the universe only looks
about the same in all directions but not the same at all distances even though it may
appear to be homogeneous up to a quite large scale.
WHEREAS IT IS almost impossible to resist the temptation to generalize, to extend local
observations to statements about the entire universe, to assume that if no point in
space is more special than any other, this means that it is about the same everywhere,
that it has particular properties and at any (cosmic) time it is in some single, particular
state as a whole; as doing so comes down to stating that the universe has been created
by some outside intervention, we should follow the philosopher’s advice that ‘what
one cannot observe, thereof one must be silent.1 If we find it so hard to refrain from
imagining to look over God’s shoulders at His2 creation, then that may be because it
allows us to imagine that there is Someone outside of it in Whose eyes we exist, that
because our own existence is so undeniably real to us, its transcends the universe, it
almost is impossible not to imagine looking at it from the outside.
The universe only can have properties, be in any singe particular state as a whole, have
an external if (for practical reasons like finding an exit and the absence of space and
1 Well, Wittgenstein actually said: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.2 To attribute God a gender is to presume that He or She has Parents and, perhaps Kids..
38
time outside of it for an observer to find himself in) unobservable reality if it has been
created by some outside intervention violating the definition of what a universe is.
Like a particle cannot be electrically charged itself if there exists no other charge, the
universe cannot exist, have a beginning, a definite age, have any property, be in any
particular state if by definition there is nothing outside of it, nothing relative to which it
can begin, exist, exhibit, express any property. In speaking about its age, dimension and
energy content we state that space, time, energy and their units are defined even
outside the universe: that despite its claim to describe the universe from within, BBC
conceives of the universe as living in a space and time realm not of its own making.
The point is that we only can speak about its size, age and energy content if energy,
space and time are unrelated quantities if they, their units are defined even outside
the universe. As in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime defined as
a space where two points only are observed to be separated in space, to be at different
distances from the observer if she observes clocks at both points to run at a different
pace, however slightly here energy, space and time are intrinsically related meaning
that their units aren’t defined outside the universe so concepts like cosmic time and
the energy density of the universe don’t make any sense. As the universe by definition
has no external reality so cannot live in a time realm not of its own making but
contains, produces all time within, we cannot think of time as passing at the same pace
everywhere and say that we see the universe as it was in a more distant past, in the
past, as we look at larger distances. In a selfcreating universe there is no universewide
now: here terms like past, present and future are relative, local notions since if particle
properties are cause and effect of their interactions, their communication must be
instant, it doesn’t make sense to ask what precedes what, where it is earlier and later
in an absolute sense that is, as ‘seen’ from outside the universe.
IF THE OBSERVED pace of clocks in empty space, far from masses at rest relative to the
observer decreases linearly with their distance and a gravitational field is an area of
‘condensed’ spacetime as seen from a position where the field is weak, then, as will be
discussed in § 5, the pace of clocks inside a gravitational field should be observed to
decrease even faster with their distance to the observer as measured outside the field
a phenomenon known as the gravitational time dilation / length contraction of GR.
As BBC hinges on the assumption that time passes at the same pace everywhere in
empty space, far from masses, that there is a universewide now, the observation of
the redshift of galaxies had to be interpreted as caused by their receding motion, as
proof that we live in an expanding universe which then must have had a beginning.
As BBC doesn’t offer any idea about how the different elementary particles created at
or shortly into the big bang knew what properties to be created with, as it assumes
that they appeared with a definite rest mass, that it is a space independent quantity,
only the cause of interactions, its origin why the different particles have the masses
they have and of the energy needed to make them move apart against gravity, to
drive the expansion of space cannot be understood even in principle.
While we can claim that space has an intrinsic energy density to drive its expansion to
save the big bang tale, that the newly created space comes with the same energy
density so we can say that it keeps expanding without having to explain the origin of
that energy reminding of Munchhausen saving himself from drowning in the swamp
by pulling his hair and the uncertainty principle, in stating that a field cannot be and
remain zero, indeed implies that empty space contains energy, that doesn’t, as argued
above, mean that we may accuse this vacuum energy of driving its expansion.
39
Clearly, if when the definition of what a universe is implies that the energy of particles
is cause and effect of their interactions, of forces between them, energy cannot drive a
force which is either attractive or repulsive, of itself, so there cannot be two opposite,
independent kinds of energy, then the rate of expansion of the universe cannot be
explained as the result of their relative amounts. While BBC by trying out different
amounts of radiation, of visible and invisible kinds of matter and energy, of attractive
and repulsive kinds of energy the universe contains at different times in its equations
can reproduce but not retrodict, predict, from first principle, the observed redshift of
galaxies at all distances, expansion rates at different times s it anyhow cannot explain
why these amounts are what they supposedly are, why the universe is as it is, big bang
cosmology cannot explain even in principle how the universe can create itself which
was the purpose of the entire venture.
IT IS BECAUSE we’re used to examine the subject of our study from the outside, with
the naked eye, a micro or telescope why we assume that we can understand the
universe by imagining to look at it from the outside, why we came to think of the
universe as an ordinary object, an approach which only would be justified if particle
properties would be the cause but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their
interactions. However, in describing its properties and state from an imaginary vantage
point outside of it by speaking about its age, size and energy content we state that
energy, space and time are unrelated, absolute quantities: that energy, space and time
exist, that energies, distances and durations, the amount of work or heat in a joule, the
length of the meter and duration of the second are defined even in a space devoid of
energy even outside the universe, which fits the assumption that we are allowed to
imagine looking at it from the outside, as if looking over Gods Shoulders at Her
creation. Because of this, BBC couldn’t but conceive of space as if it is some rarefied,
gaslike stuff which is the same everywhere, as if it comes with a regular grid the size of
the cells of which is defined, which can be expressed in millimeters, which is the same
everywhere, always, so in this view the expansion of space isn’t the increase of the size
of the cells, but the increase in time of the number of cells separating any two objects.
As going back in time the energy density of the universe increases, to become infinite
at the big bang, going back in time space doesn’t shrink, fold into itself, but vanishes in
a manner which is as inexplicable as it appears in forward time direction. If when the
energy density of the universe in backward time direction increases, this means that
the energy and number of particles created at the big bang remains unchanged and it
only is the volume of space they find themselves in which shrinks, no matter whether
that is because the number of cells between them decreases or because they move
through space toward each other and collect within an everdecreasing part of a fixed,
rigid patch of space like a waiter sweeping crumbs together in a smaller and smaller
part of the tablecloth before dropping them in the dustpan then how can we say that
space expands in forward time direction, that space keeps being created between the
particles created at the big bang or, at later times, between clusters of galaxies?
To say that the crumbs the particles move toward each other within a smaller and
smaller patch of space that it isn’t space which shrinks but the volume over which they
are distributed is to say that the universe contracts in a space continuum not of its
own making so in forward time direction it expands in a space which already exists
before the big bang, outside the universe, that it lives in a space realm not of its own
making, again contradicting the claim of BBC that it describes the universe from within.
40
It is our addiction to causality, the idea that the rest energy of the particles created by
God / at the Big Bang is an intrinsic, interaction space independent quantity, only the
cause of force, that the universe has been created by some outside intervention so
lives in a spacetime space and time continuum not of its own making why BBC came to
conceive of space as a kind of gas the density and pressure of which is the same
everywhere at the same cosmic time, which to keep expanding has to reproduce itself
at the same rate everywhere, as a rarefied threedimensional fabric the size of the cells
of which is fixed, defined, which can be expressed in meters, but the number of which
increases, as something which isn’t related to (so shouldn’t be affected by) whatever it
may come to contain, a rigid fabric which to expand has to keep reproducing itself.
It also is unclear how the energy density of the universe can change from infinite at the
big bang to a finite value at later times not to mention that as its later value could
have been different, it cannot be understood even in principle why it has the value it
has, begging the question who or what determined the amount of energy to be created
or how the energy density of space which is to drive its expansion can be different1 in
different epochs, how its value can change in time if it is an intrinsic property of space.
While we can declare the laws of physics out of order at the big bang, to not apply
whenever it suits us; the creation scenario proposed by big bang cosmology is artificial,
farfetched, contrived to fit observations to the big bang tale, especially as it omits to
explain how if the universe can create itself, it always could, it can have a beginning.
It also is curious how cosmologists can rhyme the assumption that the energy density
of the universe was infinite at the big bang with Einstein’s statement that ‘energy
would disappear along with space and time’2 as space and time according to BBC cease
to exist going back in time at, before the big bang. Clearly, Einstein’s quote only applies
to a universe where the creation of energy is the creation, not of space in time, but of
spacetime spacetime meaning that the universe doesn’t live in a time realm not of its
on making, time cannot be observed to pass at the same pace everywhere.
As the universe by definition cannot have certain properties, be in any particular state
as a whole, it makes no sense to speak about its energy density nor is the universe the
spatially homogeneous object the Friedmann equations which relate its energy density
to its rate of expansion presuppose require it to be.
If empty space, far from masses, is defined in the sense that different positions are
physically different to an observing particle as the frequency it exchanges energy at
with objects at all distances varies linearly with their distance3 at sufficiently large
distances from masses, as if empty space comes with a regular grid where time passes
at the same pace everywhere, a grid relative to which we can quantify the position and
motion of objects, then that is because the mass distribution in a SCU is homogeneous
up to a quite large distance,4 so if we specify their position and motion relative to such
grid or background space, then we specify them relative to the masses producing,
1 The quantum vacuum and the cosmological constant problem (2000) SE Rugh, H Zinkernagel; Zinkernagel
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 33
(4): 663705. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hepth/0012253.pdf2 The original quote said that ‘space and time would disappear along with matter.’ However, as matter is a
form of energy and we may read his quote backwards, Einstein wouldn’t disagree with the change.3 That is, if the redshift which BBC interprets as a velocity redshift, in a SCU is a distance redshift.4 Unlike in a BBU where if the universe looks isotropic to observers everywhere, it also is homogeneous; in
a SCU it only looks about the same in all directions to observers everywhere, not the same at all distances
even though it looks about the same up to quite large distances. As a SCU cannot have any particular
property as a whole, we cannot speak about the energy density or the mass distribution of the universe.
41
maintaining that grid, a grid which can be thought of as composed of fields living upon
each other or shaping what we observe as spacetime.
The notion of energy, space and time in a SCU differs completely, fundamentally from
what they are in BBC: concepts like cosmic time, the energy density, age and rate of
expansion of the universe belong to the grammar of metaphysics, of cosmythology.
AS THE REST energy of particles in BBC is an intrinsic, fixed, essentially static quantity,1
only the cause of interactions, either positive or negative, the observation that there is
much more matter than antimatter in the universe violates the Nix law according to
which the universe cannot have a nonzero energy or electric charge, for that matter.
If the energy of particles is cause and effect of their interactions with all other particles
within their IH, of their behavior relative to each other, and every degree of freedom,
every independent way they can move relative to each other in some configuration
affects the energy they observe each other to have the frequency they exchange
energy at in a different, distinguishable manner, in different directions within that
configuration, then, as will be explored in § 7, the different kinds of charge, conserved
quantities all contribute to and are manifestations of a single quantity, of their energy
as opposed to the present view where, as their properties only are the cause of forces,
the different kinds of charge had to be conceived of as qualitatively different,
independent quantities which if true would mean that the different forces of nature
associated with these properties, kinds of charge cannot be unified even in principle.
As long as we assume that what seem to be different kinds of charge only are the cause
of forces, as if their magnitude BFPD can be measured from outside the universe, it
cannot be explained even in principle why particles have the charge they have, their
origin, why there is such a thing as gravity let alone unify gravity with the other forces.
IF A FORCE is weaker as the position it acts from is less definite, as its magnitude varies
less with distance as the energy powering it is distributed more uniformly over a larger
area, if the position it the particle2 acts from and is acted upon is less definite, then it
can be seen why the UP defines the energy of a particle as being higher that energy is
a stronger source of gravity, that it acts as an object the mass of which is greater as its
position is less indefinite, as more of its energy is localized within what as seen from
outside its gravitational field is a smaller space. The less indefinite the position of its
mass center is, the point from which its energy acts, the less indefinite the shorter the
wavelength3 or higher the frequency is in/at which it exchanges energy with the
objects in its environment, to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it
contributes the greater the mass it is observed to have.
In this text the indefiniteness in the relative position, in the distance between the mass
centers of objects refers to their distance as measured outside their gravitational field,
as inferred from their positions relative to surrounding objects, as if space would be
flat everywhere, as if it comes with a regular grid which isn’t affected, curved by the
presence of energy, as if clocks would run at the same pace everywhere.
As it takes less energy to change the distance between particles as they are farther
apart and/or their rest energy is lower, as it matters less, energetically how large their
1 Ignoring, for the moment, quantum fluctuations.2 A particle which is in the process of evolving to an elementary particle, the properties of which, as will be
discussed, are less defined as its energy is lower, as its position and hence its behavior is less definite, as its
presence, its existence differs less from its absence, its nonexistence.3 This doesn’t mean that space contains more energy as we look at smaller scales: this it only can be in a
universe where energy and space are independent quantities.
42
distance exactly is, we can define the distance between particles as less definite as it is
larger and/or their rest energy is smaller.
If when particles express and at the same time preserve their, each other’s properties
by exchanging energy, as the energy they observe, cause each other to have depends
on their distance and its rate of change, if it is their energy which makes positions at
different distances physically different, distinguishable the observed pace of clocks
and length of rods which turns an imaginary space into a real, physical spacetime, then
it can be seen how energy can create itself and spacetime with it, that energy, space
and time are intrinsically related. As in CM the rest energy of a particle only is the
cause of interactions, there is a fundamental distinction between energy and space: as
it has a boundary separating its energy from (its effect on) space, here its energy only
curves an already existing space. As in a SCU its energy is cause and effect of its
interactions, there is no such infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary between where
the particle, its energy ends and space begins: as it is its energy which makes positions
at different distances physically different, it doesn’t just curve spacetime in its vicinity
but is itself a local extension of spacetime1 so we cannot think of it as if its properties
are localized in an infinitesimal point, as if there is a fundamental distinction between
its mass or electric charge and its gravitational or electric field.
If mass, a gravitational field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as seen from outside
the field, then its energy doesn’t just curve, distort an already existing volume of space
in its vicinity but, in affecting the observed pace of clocks and length of rods, manifests
itself as a local extension of spacetime so space cannot be devoid of energy, that we
cannot think of spacetime as if it exists, is defined in the absence of energy.
THE ASSUMPTION THAT particle properties only are the cause of interactions leads to
problems which, while they can be circumvented mathematically, cannot be solved,
such as the fact that interaction energies and forces between pointparticles would
become infinite at infinitesimal distances, corresponding to an infinite bare mass and
charge of particles. The advantage of particle properties as being cause and effect of
their interaction is that forces and interaction energies never can become infinite as in
that case the energy of all particles to which they owe their energy, to the energy of
which they contribute then also would have to become infinite which would take an
infinite energy to achieve. As a force only can become as strong the energy powering
it as high as the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, forces between them only
can become infinite if we spend an infinite amount of energy in decreasing (the
indefiniteness in) their distance, in (UP) increasing their energy and with it any kind of
charge which contributes to their energy.
If we encounter infinities, then that usually is because we omitted to specify relative to
what a particle has some property which only would be defensible if it would be an
intrinsic, fixed, interaction independent quantity, only the cause of interactions.
As in the classical view the electric charge of particles is a privately owned, fixed and
hence static quantity,2 either positive or negative, only the cause of forces, a finite
sized electron would disintegrate due to the electric repulsion between its parts, it is
supposed to be a dimensionless point particle, implying an infinite bare mass and
charge, infinite forces and interaction energies at infinitesimal distances.
To explain why electrons nevertheless exhibit a finite electric charge in experiments,
the existence was proposed of virtual electronpositron pairs which, surrounding the
1 Be it that most of it is localized within what as seen from outside its gravitational field is an extremely
short distance from its mass center.2 Ignoring quantum fluctuations.
43
real electron, screen its infinite charge, thereby decreasing the magnitude of its charge.
Such problems obviously don’t occur in a universe where the energy of particles the
effective magnitude of any charge which contributes to and is an expression of their
energy is cause and effect of their interactions, where it is a dynamic, wavelike
quantity, something the sign and magnitude of which varies within every cycle of their
energy exchange, where forces between particles, the energy or charge they observe
each other to have the frequency they exchange energy at only increases as (the
indefiniteness in) their distance decreases which takes energy to achieve.
The electric charge of an electron therefore is observed to be higher when probed at
shorter distances as it takes a higher energy, a higher momentum to decrease the
(indefiniteness in the) distance between the electron and an electrically charged probe
particle as they collide a momentum which increases the effective magnitude of the
electric charge they exhibit in the collision. A similar problem exists in GR: as the rest
energy of particles is thought to be only the cause and not also, simultaneously, the
effect of their interactions as something which is unrelated to space it predicts black
holes to have a gravitational singularity at their center, a place where the energy
density is infinite which it only can be if energy and space are independent quantities
and which if true would mean that energy cannot curve space.
Clearly, as in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation, not of space in time but of
spacetime, here energy doesn’t, as in GR, cause space to curve as this presupposes that
space already exists, is defined even before there is any energy, as if there exists a fixed
amount of space which only is warped in the vicinity of masses in the sense that if we
were to imagine empty space as if it comes furnished with a regular threedimensional
grid, the size of the cells of this grid would shrink in the vicinity of masses and expand
in between so the number of cells, the amount of space, so to say, remains unchanged,
as if before there is energy, there exists an a priori spacetime ‘which matter merely
modifies and does not create’ which, however, is at odds with the fact that energy
only can cause space to curve if has a property energy can act upon which, as energy
only can act upon energy must be energy. Only if, as in BBC where the concept energy
density of the universe defines energy and space as independent quantities so states
that space exists, is defined even in the absence of energy can we accuse energy of
causing space to curve even though this is impossible if energy only can act on energy.
It may be the fundamental difference between a universe where the creation of energy
is the creation not of space in time but of spacetime, where it is localized energy which
makes positions at different distances physically different where it is energy which
determines the extent to which the observed pace of clocks and length of rods varies
from one point, one distance to the next and a universe where, as time passes at the
same pace anywhere, energy and space are unrelated quantities why general relativity
in its present causal form cannot be unified with a quantum mechanics which only
can be understood rationally, not causally as the definition of what a universe is implies
particles, particle properties to be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions,
their communication to be instantaneous.
WHILE ONE CAN argue whether or not gravity is a force; if when the energy of particles
is cause and effect of their interactions, a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive,
of itself if the attraction between particles cannot be unequal to their inertia, to their
opposition to it, to their repulsion then there can be no two independent, opposite
kinds of energy to explain the expansion of a big bang universe as indeed, if when it
44
only can have a definite energy density if energy and space are unrelated quantities, if
space exists even when devoid of energy, energy cannot cause it to curve nor expand.
If we were to associate a positive energy with an attractive force, with ordinary matter,
with gravity and a negative energy with a repulsive force, with antimatter then matter
and antimatter wouldn’t attract gravitationally: if it does, then there cannot be two
opposite kinds of energy or energy be a static quantity, either positive or negative.
Though gravitational energy is supposed to be negative, this it only is if the mass of
particles only is the cause of forces, not in a universe where their mass is cause and
effect of their interactions, where it isn’t the mass of particles which causes them to
contract at places but where it is their contraction which (UP) increases their mass.1
if when particles express and preserve their properties by exchanging energy if their
energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, if their attraction only
can become as strong as the repulsion, the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, if
when their energy increases, both their attraction and repulsion increases then the
expansion of the universe (if any) cannot be explained as resulting from an excess of a
repulsive kind of energy above an attractive, gravitational energy.
Whereas going backward in time in a BBU everything ends up within an infinitesimal
volume so the energy density of the universe becomes infinite at the big bang; as going
back in time in a SCU the energy of objects decreases, all points of space become more
identical physically, here energy disappears together with spacetime, so in forward
time direction the selfcreation of the universe reminds of a photograph in a darkroom,
its contrasts and details becoming more defined as it develops be it that we cannot
speak about the properties and state of the entire universe, but have to specify the
observing particle as it depends on its own energy how it observes its universe to be.
WHILE WE CAN describe an equilibrium between elementary particles as a balance
between two opposite forces powered by qualitatively different, independent kinds of
charge; if it would be fixed quantities, only the cause of forces, then any equilibrium
would be unstable since as soon as their attraction due to one kind of charge at some
distance overcomes their repulsion due to another kind of charge, they would go sit
and stay on top of each other. However, if according to the UP their energy then would
become infinite an energy which has to be supplied by the environment then we
might as well say that it is the environment, the uncertainty principle which acts as the
counterforce to their attraction. Moreover, if the energy to be supplied comes from
the contraction of particles in their environment due to the same, attractive kind of
charge, then what classically seem to be qualitatively different, independent kinds of
charge cannot be unrelated quantities.
If, as will be discussed in § 7, any kind of charge contributes to the energy of particles,
is an expression of their energy, if the energy involved in one interaction, associated
with one kind of charge, powers and is powered by all other interactions a particle is
simultaneously involved in due other kinds of charge so what seem to be independent,
qualitatively different kinds of charge are different expressions of a single quantity, of
the energy of particles, then this throws a different light on the unification of forces.
Whereas the different particle species in a BBU were created ready made at the big
bang so their properties casually precede, predetermine those of the atoms they form;
as in a SCU particles evolve together with the atomic nuclei and atoms they form, their
properties must be the result of a trial and error evolution of random configurations
1 To avoid particles to have a negative energy as E = hv this seems to imply a negative frequency; to keep
believing that it is a privately owned, static quantity, only the cause of forces, either positive (particles) or
negative (antiparticles), one has agreed to call the energy of antiparticles positive and instead change the
sign of their electric charge (or time direction) which in a SCU comes down to the same thing.
45
which in the course of time increasingly resemble their actual configuration in atomic
nuclei and atoms which they only can if they can adjust their properties, the effective
magnitude of the different kinds of charge they observe, cause each other to have by
adjusting their configuration, their distance and relative motion so they can achieve
and maintain a stable equilibrium which requires their communication to be instant.
If any kind of charge contributes to and is a manifestation of the energy of particles, if
energy, whatever its pedigree, is a source of gravity so any kind of charge contributes
to their mass and their energy is cause and effect of their interactions, then gravity
cannot be accused of causing particles to contract: in a SCU it is their contraction, the
decrease of (the uncertainty in) their distance which increases their energy, both their
attraction and repulsion, the effective magnitude of any kind of charge, their mass.
It is because their communication is instant why particles can adjust their behavior
relative to each other in some configuration and with it the properties ‘causing’ that
specific behavior which enables a trial and error evolution of particle properties and
specie, of particles the behavior, the properties of which are less defined, less definite
as their position is less definite, as their energy is lower to elementary particles.
AS WILL BE discussed in the next section, gravity in a selfcreating universe turns out to
be the expression of the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself and
with it spacetime without violating any conservation law. While a SCU only exists as
seen from within, as it doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own making but contains,
produces all time inside of it, time cannot be observed to pass at the same pace at all
distances meaning that past, present and future are relative, local notions; it is the
assumption central to BBC that it is the same (cosmic) time that time passes at the
same pace everywhere in empty space why we came to think of light as something
which moves through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels, why we
assume that we see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past.
As classically the emission of a photon by an atom causally precedes its absorption
elsewhere so the emitting atom autonomously determines the energy of the photon,1
Hubble’s discovery that the light of galaxies is shifted farther to red as they are more
distant only could be interpreted as caused by their receding motion, implying that the
universe expands, so going back in time, the universe must have had a beginning.
The discovery that the Earth, despite appearances, isn't the center of the universe was
generalized to the assumption that no point in space is more special than any other so
the universe at large scale should look about the same at all distances, in all directions
to observers everywhere at the same moment in cosmic time if they account for the
effect on their observation of their distance and motion relative to the observed.
While such homogeneity enables us to quantify its rate of expansion as a function of its
energy content; if the universe by definition cannot have particular properties, be in
any single particular state as a whole, if it has no external reality so doesn’t live in a
time realm not of its own making then it cannot be homogeneous, expand at the same
rate everywhere at the same moment in cosmic time.
To illustrate how any observer or observing particle can consider itself to be at the
center of his / its universe, how the universe can be spatially finite yet unbounded, its
particles, stars and galaxies are sometimes imagined to be distributed over the two
dimensional surface of a sphere by suppressing one space dimension. In this picture all
matter, energy, space and time, all observers and objects together with all measurers
1That is, an atom cannot emit photons of arbitrary energies: their energy follows laws of nature.
46
meter sticks, clocks, thermometers etc. to describe it, only exist within this infinitely
thin spherical surface, the space inside and outside the sphere having no reality.
Though BBC (cl)aims to describe the universe from within that it doesn’t expand in an
already existing space, that there is no space nor time outside of it; the problem is that
it makes no sense to speak about its inside dimension, whether it is small or large, if as
BBC agrees it has no external reality, if there is nothing outside of it to compare its size
with. As we only can imagine the universe the sphere to expand, speak about its
properties and state if it lives in a space and time realm not of its own making, BBC,
despite its claim to describe the universe from within, nevertheless conceives of the
universe as an object which lives in a space and time continuum not of its own making:
that there is something outside of it relative to which it starts to exist, has particular
properties and at any time is in some particular state as a whole so has been created
by some outside intervention.
While one might object that we can perfectly well describe the universe from within,
using inside clocks, measuring rods and scales; as the concept energy density of the
universe central to BBC defines energy and space as independent quantities and this
they only can be if space and energy, the meter and joule are defined even outside the
universe, it is impossible to quantitatively describe the universe from within.
As according to BBC the universe at any time has certain properties and is in some
particular state as a whole, here we may imagine to look at it, describe it quantitatively
from the outside as opposed to a SCU which, as it has no external reality but only exist
as seen from within so cannot have particular properties, be in any particular state as a
whole, it makes no sense to speak about its energy density, its age or temperature.
However flawed the spherical shell picture of the universe is, it serves to illustrate how
a universe can be selfcontained, how everything which is and happens only exists and
happens inside this infinitely thin spherical shell and, as it has no reality to an imaginary
observer in or outside the sphere, we only can describe it if we specify the observer or
observing particle not the universe but the universe as they observe it to be: how
particles in this universe only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they
interact, express and at the same time preserve each other’s properties by exchanging
energy, information, but have no reality to an imaginary observer outside the sphere.
While we find it obvious that the universe is electrically neutral as by definition there is
no charge outside of it; our common sense seems to have deserted us as we speak
about its temperature, entropy, energy density, its surplus of matter above antimatter
as in doing so we state that there is something outside of it relative to which exists, has
those properties and is such state. As according to BBC the universe could have been
different so we cannot explain even in principle why it is as it is, we can as well give up
any pretention that we try to comprehend it and admit that we believe that it has been
created by some Creator and fit our interpretation of observations to this supposition.
A similar consideration may have been on Einstein’s mind when he wrote
In a sensible theory there are no [dimensionless] numbers whose values are determinable
only empirically. I can, of course, not prove that … dimensionless constants in the laws of
nature, which from a purely logical point of view can just as well have other values, should
not exist.1 Nature is constituted so that it is possible to lay down such strongly determined
laws that within these laws only rationally, completely determined constants occur (not
constants, therefore, that could be changed without completely destroying the theory).2
1 I. RosenthalSchneider, Reality and Scientific Truth, P 74. Wayne State University Press 1980
Reprinted in Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, p. 34. 2005 edition. 2 Einstein A. 1999. Autobiographical notes. La Salle, IL.: Open Court, p. 63. (as cited by Hossenfelder S.
(2018) Lost in math p 91.
47
Whereas BBC doesn’t cannot offer any idea why the laws and constants of nature are
what they are, how the particles of the different species created at the big bang knew
what properties to be created with and in what amounts because it assumes their
properties to be only the cause of interactions; only in a universe where particles,
particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, of their behavior relative
to each other so their communication is instant can they adjust their behavior, the
properties they exhibit, evolve in a trial and error process to elementary particles so
only those particle properties and species survive which manage to survive together
with the associated laws and constants of nature. As these laws and constants evolve
together with the particles the behavior of which they describe, the properties
‘causing’ that behavior, they automatically assume those values which enable their
mutual selfcreation and continued existence, so unlike in a BBU, in a SCU there’s no
need for an improbable finetuning i.e., for any outside intervention.
THIS STUDY FOLLOWS only those roads reason allowed me to take. While this approach
doesn’t guarantee that I’ll find anything useful; it won’t hurt to see what vistas it may
open. In throwing a different light on things, it may offer clues to the solution of some
fundamental problems which as yet refused to be solved. The Nix law the mother of
all conservation laws, the most fundamental of all laws of nature will prove to be a
powerful tool to answer some fundamental questions right away, a shortcut to decide
at a glance whether or not some idea or theory might possibly make sense.
2
The why of gravity; gravity and timeIf energy in a selfcreating universe has the tendency to increase, to keep creating itself
and, as will be discussed in § 5, clocks are observed to run at a slower pace, particles to
oscillate at a lower frequency, to have a lower energy as they are more distant, then a
lower rest energy of particles can be associated with an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase.
If according to the uncertainty principle energy is a stronger source of forces as the
position it acts from is less indefinite, and a particle is observed to oscillate at a lower
frequency, exchange energy in a longer, less definite wavelength as it is more distant,
then its position and motion the properties its behavior is the expression of are less
defined, its interactions weaker as observed from a larger distance.
While in a BBU the different elementary particles popped up readymade, with all their
properties at full strength from one moment to the next at the big bang, begging the
question how they knew with what properties to be created; as will be discussed in § 7,
in a SCU they evolve gradually in a trial and error process whereby only those particle
properties, species and associated laws of nature survive ... which manage to survive.
If when particles are cause and effect of their interactions, their properties cannot, as
in a BBU, causally precede, predetermine those of atomic nuclei, of atoms, then they
evolve together with the stars and galaxies they form. Whereas in a BBU we see a
distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past; in a SCU we see it as it is,
to us, as we look at it, in what only to us is the present, so if particles are observed to
have a lower energy, less defined properties, to be in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase as
they are more distant, then the same goes for galaxies they form: the more distant
they are, the ‘earlier’ the phase we observe them to be in quote marks as terms like
48
earlier and later in a SCU don’t have the causal connotation they have in a BBU, where,
as it is the same time everywhere, we can delude ourselves that we can determine
what in an absolute sense precedes what, what is cause of what what only would be
possible if we actually could examine the universe from the outside.
As a SCU only exists as seen from within, as it doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own
making but contains, produces all time within so clocks cannot be observed to run at
the same pace at all distances, the universe of any observer or observing particle
always contains objects in all possible phases of their evolution, including particles with
an infinitesimal energy, particles they observe to be in the most ‘early’ phase of their
evolution be it that not all phases are accessible to observation by all observers /
observing particles. If any observer can consider herself to be (at) the center of her
universe and her IH, her universe begins / ends where she observes time to pass at an
infinitesimal pace, then the universe of every observer contains its own beginning be it
that it is not a beginning we can think of as having been completed in the past.
Though at macroscopic level, in CM there seems to be an objective reality at the origin
of our observations; as in a SCU particles, particle properties are cause and effect of
their interactions, at particle level there is no single, objective, universewide reality,
no universewide past, present and future which is the same to all objects and
observers, which causally precedes the observation thereof.
While we can define the beginning of the universe of a particle as the time it starts to
exist, to have, to exchange energy with the objects within its, at that time, limited
interaction horizon; it is not, as in a BBU, a beginning all particles have in common,
which happens to all particles at the same moment in cosmic time. If the transition, the
threshold between a zero and an infinitesimal, nonzero energy of a particle, between
its existence and nonexistence cannot be situated in time, we might say that it takes
and an infinite time for a particle to start to exist as indeed in a SCU there is no such
thing as cosmic time, no universewide now, no absolute clock relative to which we
might pinpoint the time of its creation, its evolution from a zero to a nonzero energy.
Its creation, the crossing of the threshold between nonexistence and existence cannot,
as in a BBU, be thought of as completed in the past since if it evolves to everhigher
energies, then so does the rest energy it observes particles at the rim of its interaction
horizon, the evolutionary phase it observes them to be in: we might say that in the
course of time, as it evolves itself to higher energies, its observation horizon recedes
from it. Not in the sense that in the course of time more, already existing objects at
larger distances come into view, as in a BBU, but that it participates in the creation, in
the energy increase of particles, of the galaxies they are contracting to, at the rim of its
‘expanding’ universe as its communication with those particles is instant quote marks
on ‘expand’ as it isn’t the expansion of space in time but the creation of spacetime, a
process whereby points at different distances become more different, physically.
CLASSICAL MECHANICS IS based on the assumption that there is an objective reality at
the origin of our observations, causally preceding the observation thereof.
Einstein:1
We all, more or less in the same way, say that a rose is red, smells like perfume, and feels
like velvet. In other words, there is an objective reality which is conceived by the senses,
and behind this objective reality are natural laws which are the privilege of the scientist to
discover. Nature doesn’t know chance, it operates on mathematical principles. As I have
said so many times, God doesn’t play dice with the world.
1 Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), William Hermanns, p. 58
49
While the belief that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations may
hold at macroscopic level, for classical objects things we can see with the naked eye
like a rose; in a selfcreating universe, at quantum level, from the point of view of the
particles doing the creating there is no single, objective reality at the origin of their
observations they all share, have in common: as their properties are cause and effect
of interactions they don’t observe each other as they are, of themselves, but as they
cause each other to be. As they only exist to each other if, for as long and to the extent
they interact, and not, as in CM, in BBC, to an imaginary observer outside the universe,
they don’t have the autonomous existence, the objective, observer independent reality
of classical objects defined as objects the properties of which only are the cause of
interactions Einstein assumes they are: it is because we confuse causality with reason
why quantum mechanics some ninety years after its inception still isn’t understood.
Determinism, causality the assumption that elementary particles have been provided
with properties at their oneoff creation by God / at the Big Bang, that it are privately
owned, fixed quantities, only the cause of interactions means that all events ever to
happen are predetermined to happen as and when they to the last of an infinite series
of decimals at the creation of the universe, that, if we know the exact location and
motion of all particles and their properties at one time, we can predict the entire
future of the universe to the last detail. In the words of Laplace 1
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of
its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in
motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were
also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the
movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such
an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present
before its eyes.
If in quantum mechanics we only can speak about the probabilities of the different
possible outcomes of an experiment in which particles collide, say, then that is because
if their properties, their behavior is cause and effect of their interactions with all other
particles within their IH and their communication is instant, they affect the behavior of
the particles in the experiment, participate in it, so the result of the experiment also
depends on the events they are involved in at the time of the collision. Though he was
one of its founding fathers, Einstein couldn’t accept quantum mechanics because of its
inherent indeterminism. However, determinism, causality belongs to a universe which
has been created by some outside intervention, in a universe where particles, particle
properties only are the cause and not also the effect of their interactions. If we always
measure an elementary particle to have the same properties, as if it only are the cause
of its interactions, then that isn't because it are privately owned quantities but because
a change would affect the energy of all particles within its interaction horizon: it is their
collective opposition to a change why its properties seem to be fixed, static, interaction
independent quantities, why we came to conceive of particles as classical objects.
The only reality we know, are familiar with, the objects and events we can see with the
naked eye the world classical mechanics describes constitutes a secondary reality
built out of, upon the primary reality of elementary particles in a way which reminds of
the difference between a piano and the melodies it hosts. While in this comparison the
piano has no external reality but only exists as seen from within, built of particles
which if they would stop exchanging energy would cease to exist and with it the piano,
where the piano constitutes a primary, noncausal reality which remains essentially
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
50
unaffected by the melodies it hosts; the fleeting melodies stand for the classical events
we observe, the changes we experience as the passing of time including events like
the continued existence of the classical objects which seem so solid to us but which yet
take so little energy to (de)construct from (into) atoms compared to the energy as
contained (E = mc²) in their mass. As this energy is less than a billionth1 of the energy
contained in its mass, elementary particles don’t really notice what objects they are
temporally part of, what events they participate in, of the specific macroscopic reality
we find them to be part of a reality which is objective and obeys causality only at this,
macroscopic, secondary level. As a result, the relation between the piano and the
melodies between events at quantum level and events at macroscopic level is so
weak that it is impossible to infer the (quantum) mechanics of the piano why there is a
piano, a universe at all, how it works, why it is as it is from the melodies it hosts, from
events at macroscopic level, as described by classical aka causal mechanics.
While the concept of cosmic time in BBC the time put in the equations describing the
expansion of the universe defines time as something absolute, something which
always passes at the same pace everywhere (at least in empty space, far from masses);
in a SCU there is no absolute, universewide now, no unperturbable pace at which time
passes, of itself, no objective, observerindependent pace of time.
The fact that to quantify the pace of cosmic time, whether it passes fast or slow, would
require the existence of a clock outside the universe to compare its pace with, a clock
the pace of which to establish would require the existence of yet another clock the
pace of which to quantify… etc. should have alerted us to the possibility that there is
something fundamentally wrong with the concept of cosmic time, with the supposition
that time eternally passes at the same, particular, unperturbable pace everywhere.
While the discovery that the Earth isn't the center of the universe was generalized to
the assumption that no point in space is more special than any other, that there is no
unique center of space; if the universe by definition cannot be in any particular state, if
it only exits as seen from within so it cannot be the same time, time pass at the same
pace everywhere, then there also is no unique ‘center of time’, no universewide now.
As the definition of what a universe is implies the communication between particles
and hence the transmission of light to be instant, the speed of light doesn’t, as will be
discussed in § 9, refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime: in a SCU a space
distance of 300,000 km corresponds to a time distance of 1 second, not because it
takes light one second to travel that distance but because, as will be argued in § 5, the
pace of clocks is lower as observed from a larger distance even when at rest. While it
remains to be seen whether if the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime, this
comes down to some kind of expansion whether a clock can remain at rest; it should
keep running at the same, lower pace as long its distance to the observer doesn’t
change without this meaning that it runs increasingly farther behind the clock of the
observer in the course of time.
THOUGH NEWTON WAS
‘deeply uncomfortable with the notion of action at a distance that his equations implied 2
“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the
mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed
1 The amount of energy as present in the mass of iron is about 7 billion times greater than the energy it
takes to melt and evaporate it. Likewise, the energy contained in the mass of natural gas is about 2 billion
times greater than the heat, the energy which is released as it is combusted.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Newton's_reservations (104
2020) Also see https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/qmactiondistance/ (2912020)
51
from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in
philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it. … I have not yet
been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena,”
‘… in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that
produces the force of gravity. … Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the
cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented
that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of
the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes
hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These
fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound,
the definitive answer has yet to be found.’ … ‘These objections were explained by
Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved
spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies [and in] Einstein's
theory, energy and momentum distort spacetime in their vicinity [so] other particles move
in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. … In [GR] the gravitational force
is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, because the gravitational
acceleration of a body in free fall is due to its world line being a geodesic of spacetime.’1
Though the statement of Ernst Mach (called ‘Mach’s principle’ by Einstein)
When … we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in space, our
assertion is nothing more or less than an abbreviated reference to the entire universe.1
i.e., that its inertia is something it has relative to all masses in the universe which
Einstein interpreted to say that ‘the inertia of a body originates in a kind of interaction
between bodies’ and inspired him to his theory of general relativity; the theory omits
to explain the origin of the mass, of the energy causing spacetime to curve because he
couldn’t let go of causality which is why GR in its present form cannot be unified with
a quantum mechanics which only can be understood rationally, not causally.
Wikipedia
Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are
conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any
difference between them. … Newton's third law implies that active and passive
gravitational mass must always be identical (or at least proportional), but the classical
theory offers no compelling reason why the gravitational mass has to equal the inertial
mass. That it does is merely an empirical fact. Albert Einstein developed his general theory
of relativity starting with the assumption of the intentionality of correspondence between
inertial and passive gravitational mass, and that no experiment will ever detect a
difference between them, in essence the equivalence principle.2 … There is a fundamental
issue in relativity theory. If all motion is relative, how can we measure the inertia of a
body? We must measure the inertia with respect to something else. But what if we
imagine a particle completely on its own in the universe? We might hope to still have
some notion of its state of motion. Mach's principle is sometimes interpreted as the
statement that such a particle's state of motion has no meaning in that case. 3
Clearly, the supposition that a particle can exist, have inertia, mass in an otherwise
empty universe only might make sense if its rest energy would be a privately owned
quantity, only the cause of interactions, not in a universe the definition of which
implies that their inertia, their mass is cause and effect of their interactions.
1 The Science of Mechanics. p 233 Mach, Ernst (1960). LaSalle, IL: Open Court Pub. Co. LCCN 60010179.
This is a reprint of the English translation by Thomas H. MCormack (first published in 1906) See
https://archive.org/details/sciencemechanic00machgoog/page/n260/mode/2up (1042020)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Inertial_vs._gravitational_mass (1042020)3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle#Einstein's_use_of_the_principle (1042020)
52
If the energy of particles is cause and effect of their interactions so increases as forces
between them increase, as they contract to clusters, as (the uncertainty in) their
distance decreases, then instead of saying that particles contract because they in some
mysterious manner have been provided with mass at their creation by God / at the Big
Bang and masses for some unfathomable reason attract that their mass is the cause of
their gravitational attraction we can as well say that their mass only increases if and
when they contract, if they contract to clusters (and clusters of clusters) everywhere, in
concert which requires the communication to be instant.
This they are bound to do as the gravitational field they sit in increases as they contract
and with it the gravitational time dilation which, as it tends to freeze, to prolong, to
preserve in time a state in which they are nearer together above a state in which they
are farther apart a state of higher above a state of lower energy as (UP) a shorter, less
indefinite distance corresponds to a higher energy which, being a source of gravity,
increases their mass, the strength of the gravitational field they sit in and produce, and
with it the time dilation which tends to keep them at that shorter distance.
As mentioned above, the misleading thing about gravity is that in driving the changes
we experience as the passing of time the contraction of particles to stars and galaxies
we have a sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that one their mass is
the cause of the other, of their contraction, as if mass can causally precede gravity, as if
time eternally passes at some unperturbable pace, no matter whether something
happens, changes or not, as if the universe lives in a time realm not of its own making.
The problem of the assumption that mass does causally precede gravity, that the rest
mass of particles only is the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their
interactions, is that the origin of mass, the nature of gravity then cannot be understood
even in principle never mind the Higgs mechanism which tries to explain the mass of
some particles classically causally instead of quantum mechanically i.e., rationally.
If in a universe where particle properties are cause and effect of forces between them,
their communication is instant, the mass of particles cannot causally precede gravity
between them: if when it only exist as seen from within so contains, produces all time
inside of it so clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant even
when at rest so there is no universewide now then this puts an end to the illusion
that the observed time sequence of events proves that the earlier observed state or
event is cause of the later one, that we can distinguish what in an absolute sense
precedes what. Only if it would be the same time, if time would pass at the same pace
everywhere whether or not something happens if the universe would live in a time
realm not of its own making would it be defensible to imagine looking at it from
without and would it be possible to distinguish what in absolute sense precedes what.
Whereas particles in a BBU contract, move through space in time toward each other at
places because they somehow were endowed with mass at their oneoff creation by
God / at the Big Bang and masses for some mysterious reason attract; in a selfcreating
universe it is gravity which drives the changes we experience as the passing of time.
Gravity, then, is the expression of the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating
itself inherent to a selfcreating universe: without the gravitational time dilation which
comes with it as it is a source of gravity, the selfcreation of energy would be impossible
and there would exist no energy, no space nor time, no universe.1
1 The fact that in GR the gravitational field itself possesses energy means that the gravitational field energy
tends to produce more gravity which should result in an increase, a continuing creation of energy and
hence of the mass of the source of the field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution_(general_relativity)#Gravitational_energy (2512020)
53
As it is localized energy which makes points at different distances physically different,
which makes that we can speak about distances in spacetime, as it powers, manifests
itself as gravitational field the strength of which determines the observed pace of
clocks and length of rods at different spacetime distances as seen from outside the
field the creation of energy is (accompanied by, impossible without, indistinguishable
from) the creation of spacetime as opposed to BBC where the concept energy density
of the universe defines energy, space and time as independent quantities, thereby
stating that space and time exist, are defined even outside the universe.
If the energy of particles, its rate of change varies within every cycle of their oscillation
and with it the indefiniteness in their position and they keep creating and uncreating
each other over and over again in every cycle of their energy exchange and we were to
say that they keep popping up in and vanishing from space, then they can reappear at a
different places in the next cycle. The father apart they reappear, the longer, the less
definite their distance is, the longer, the less definite the wavelength they exchange
energy in, the lower the frequency is at which they pop up, vanish and reappear again,
the lower the energy they observe each other to have; whereas the shorter, the less
indefinite their distance is, the higher (UP) the energy they observe each other to have,
the shorter the wavelength or the higher the frequency they exchange energy at.
If when they reappear at a shorter distance, where the gravitational field of the other
particle is stronger, where as seen from outside their field, time passes at a slower
pace, the particles are observed to stay for a longer time nearer to each other than if
they pop up farther apart, then particles will tend to (be observed to) contract to mass
concentrations in the course of time rather than disperse, move apart. That is, if the
frequency at which they disappear and reappear is lower, we ought to observe them
for a longer time before they disappear again; if when their energy is lower as they
reappear at a larger distance, then their position, their distance is less definite, as if
they are in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution to higher energies. It is the gravitational
time dilation, the fact that if a gravitational field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as
seen from outside that clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more
distant why energy tends to increase, to keep creating itself, why nature favors a state
of higher above a state of lower energy: why there is a universe, why it can(not but)
create itself, why there is gravity, why there is time.
The nearer to each other they reappear, the higher the energy they observe, cause
each other to have, the stronger the field is they pop up in and power, the longer they
are observed to stay near each other due to the gravitational time dilation, the more
they seem to be frozen in time, as if they attract more strongly at what as seen from
outside their field is a shorter distance, the longer they act from those positions, the
greater the probability is that similar processes occur in neighboring particle clusters,
the greater the probability is that the stronger force they feel from the center of their
own cluster meets an equally strong force from opposite directions, from surrounding,
similarly contracting particle clusters, the greater the probability is that they contract,
that the energy the mass of the particles and cluster they contract to increases.
If the UP implies that the energy, the mass of the cluster increases as it contracts and
the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime (not the creation of space in time)
and most of it is concentrated within a short distance near its mass center as seen from
outside the gravitational field it is the manifestation of and we don’t acknowledge its
distance increasing effect, then its mass can seem to decrease as the cluster contracts,
as if the mass of its particles only is the cause of gravity, preceding it in which case the
origin of mass, the nature of gravity cannot be understood even in principle.
54
We cannot have it both ways: that the UP implies that energy of particles increases as
(the uncertainty in) their distance decreases as they contract so, as energy is a source
of gravity, their mass increases and at the same time say that the mass of the cluster
they contract to decreases as it contracts. Only in a universe where the (rest) mass of
particles is a privately owned property, only the cause of interactions, where energy
and space are unrelated quantities can we think of a spacetime which already exists
before there is energy, a spacetime ‘which matter merely modifies and does not
create’ would the mass of particles decrease as they contract to galaxies.
Whereas particles only can contract to clusters (and clusters of clusters) if they do so
everywhere, in concert, if their communication is instant; it isn’t so that the particles
move through space, in time as they contract to clusters, as if space and time already
exist, are defined even in the absence of energy: it is the increase of their energy, of
the cluster they contract to which creates spacetime, which increases the extent to
which positions at different distances differ physically.
While particles do contract in spacetime; if their energy increases as (the indefiniteness
in) their distance decreases and a particle has no fundamental boundary separating its
energy from (its effect on) spacetime, if a particle is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime
as seen from outside the gravitational field it is the source, the manifestation of, then
the particle is a local extension of spacetime even though putting a particle somewhere
in spacetime does curve the spacetime which already exists, as shaped by the presence
of masses at all distances, when it is put inside of: in a SCU there is no sharp boundary
where the spacetime the particle, its energy represents ends and the spacetime of the
objects begins to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes.
In prolonging in time a state in which their distance is smaller above a state in which
they are farther apart, in favoring an energy increase of particles and the clusters they
form above a decrease a contraction of particles above a dispersion nature defines
energy as something which has the tendency to increase, to keep creating itself
without violating any conservation law as it in one phase is as positive as it is negative
in the next so the total energy of the universe is zero, because energy is something
which only exists within their interactions, not to an imaginary observer outside the
universe as in BBC.
While gravity, in driving the changes we experience as the passing of time, in imposing
a direction on events produces a time sequence between events we mistake as proof
that the earlier observed event is the cause of the later one that particles contract
because they were created with mass and masses for some reason attract and time
passes anyhow, that mass causally precedes gravity; if the energy of particles is cause
and effect of forces between them so increases as forces between them increase, as
they contract, as (the uncertainty in) their distance decreases, here there is energy
mass created as they contract and, as it is localized energy which makes positions at
different distances physically different, with it spacetime.
Though in a SCU any kind charge contributes to and is an expression of the energy of
particles so contributes to their mass so is represented in, participates in the exertion
of gravity; that doesn’t mean that particles owe their charge to gravity. We must
distinguish between the energy exchange between particles by means of which they
express and preserve their existence, which preserves the status quo the world we
see and gravity, the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself driving the
change of that status quo, which makes that we experience the passing of time.
55
As the gravitational field of a particle (which only is appreciably strong at an extremely
short distance from its mass center) is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, of distance to
its mass center, its field slows down the frequency it oscillates at as seen from outside
the field, decreasing its observed energy, so if the same holds for a particle cluster then
its mass may seem to decrease as it contracts if we don’t account for the fact that its
field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, that the distance between its mass center
(from which we assume its energy acts as a source of gravity) and the observer as
measured inside the field is larger than it is as measured outside of it, i.e., as calculated
from its position relative to surrounding clusters. It is because as seen from the outside
in, its field increases the distance from its mass center, from which its energy acts as a
source of gravity, which dilutes (and, if a larger spacetime distance means that clocks
are observed to run at a slower pace at its center, delays in time the expression of its
mass?) why gravity seems to be so weak a force.
However, if as seen from the opposite direction, from its mass center, from inside the
field out, its field by accelerating the frequency particles oscillate at enhances their
energy, the mass of the objects to which it owes its energy and with it its own energy
as if to compensate for the forcediluting effect the gravitational field has in the other
direction, then it may be a bit premature to say that gravity is a weak force.
This paradoxical effect may be more pronounced as the object is more massive and
compact because if it owes its mass to and contributes to the mass of more objects at
larger distances as it is heavier, its gravitational field must be stronger, its gradient
steeper nearer to its mass center if it is to enhance the mass of objects at larger
distances to preserve its own mass. If so, if the gradient of the field of an object is
steeper nearer to its center as it is more massive and compact if the position of its
mass center is less indefinite, if more of its energy can be localized within a smaller
space if, as in the case of a black hole, the gradient changes more abruptly from steep
to flat within what as seen from outside its field, is a smaller distance to its mass center
as it is more massive, then the distinction between mass, a solid object and what looks
like empty space becomes more pronounced if with empty spacetime we mean the
flatgradient part of its field, where the observed pace of clocks varies much less with
distance than it does nearer to its center. If spacetime seems to be flat at large scale
flat meaning that in a SCU the observed pace of clock at rest in empty space, far from
masses, varies linearly with distance to the observer (as opposed to a BBU where time
passes at the same pace everywhere in empty space) this is because of the space
‘flattening’ effects of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies combined with
the fact that in a universe where the energy of objects is cause and effect of their
interactions the distribution of mass tends to be isotropic to observers everywhere.
In other words, the distinction between energy between matter, solid objects and
space which seems so abrupt, absolute that we came to think of energy and space as
unrelated quantities conceals the fact that it actually are the two sides of a single coin.
THE ORIGIN OF mass, why there is gravity, why it is as it is only can be explained in a
universe where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, where
their communication is instant, where mass cannot causally precede gravity. As the
universe only exists as seen from within, we are not, as in BBC, allowed to imagine
looking at it from the outside and infer from the ‘observed’ time sequence of events
what precedes what in an absolute sense, what is cause of what: as no observer or
observing particle is more special than any other, any observer or observing particle
can consider him / itself to be (at) the center of their universe, all observers are equally
right about the time of an event they observe, participate in.
56
Though counts of radio galaxies showing that quasars and radio galaxies only are found
at large distances so could only have existed in the distant past discredited the steady
state theory of Hoyle c.s. according to which the universe always looks about the same;
this only holds for a universe where it is the same time, where time passes at the same
pace everywhere so lives in a time realm not of its own making, which grows older and,
like a big bang universe has an external, if, for practical reasons, unobservable, reality.
Though Hoyle c.s. had to postulate a creation of matter out of nothing (and, like BBC,
omitting to explain the mechanics of such creation and violating conservation laws)) to
keep their universe always looking the same despite expanding and growing older; the
continuous creation of matter nevertheless suggests that there was a time when there
was no matter, when its creation began: when there was no (steady state) universe.
As the transmission of light is instant in a SCU, as it only exists as seen from within so
contains, produces all time within means that time must be observed to pass at a
slower pace at larger distances, we don’t, as in a big bang and steady state universe,
see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past, but as it is, to us, in
what only to us is the present, in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase instead of at an earlier
moment in cosmic time, so here the observation that quasars and radio sources only
are found at large distances doesn’t discredit a selfcreating universe.
The farther apart two particles are, the less their universes coincide, overlap, the less
they contribute to each other’s energy, the weaker they interact, the lower the energy
they observe each other to have, the less definite according to one particle the position
and hence the motion, the behavior of the other particle is, the less defined, evolved
they observe each other’s properties to be as if they observe each other to be in an
‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are farther apart the greater their freedom of
behavior is relative to each other, the less their behavior is related, the less they have
in common, the less it makes sense to say that they live in the same time realm, that
time passes at the same pace at both particles.
This isn't to say that particle properties are different elsewhere: as a property isn’t
something a particle can privately own, as the universe cannot have certain properties,
be in any particular state as a whole, it only has to look different at different distances
which it does as the ‘same’ particle is observed to have a different energy by identical
particles at different distances so observe each other to be different, to have a lower
energy, a less definite behavior, corresponding to less definite, less evolved properties
as they are farther apart. If when the energy of a particle is the superposition of all
wavelengths it simultaneously exchanges energy in with particles at all distances, it
depends on the distance it is observed from what energy it is observed to have, what
evolutionary phase it is observed to be in, so if it has different energies simultaneously,
then it can be said to be in different evolutionary phases simultaneously, its actual
observed energy and evolutional phase depending on the observing particle, on its
own rest energy, its distance and motion relative to the observed.
If the same goes for a galaxy they form, a galaxy similarly can be said to be in different
evolutionary phases ‘simultaneously’ (quote marks as there is no universewide now in
a SCU) the phase it is observed to be in similarly depending on the observer.
The point is that while an observer in a distant galaxy may observe the Milky Way to be
in a similarly ‘early’ phase of its evolution as we see her galaxy; this doesn’t mean that
we may conclude that the entire universe grows older, that all galaxies are in about the
same evolutionary phase and evolve at the same pace everywhere: that it has a
beginning as that would mean that it has been created by some outside interference.
57
It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day, Mach's principle has not brought physics
decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure
subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach's principle may therefore have a future but
not without the quantum theory. —Abraham Pais1
3
The equality of gravitational and inertial massIF THE UNIVERSE would contain only a single particle, then all points in space would be
physically identical, indistinguishable to the particle which is the same as there being
no space at all. As there’s nothing relative to which its location can be specified, its
position is completely indefinite, corresponding, according to the UP, to a zero energy:
if there is nothing to interact with to express its existence, its properties, then it cannot
have properties, mass, inertia, exist itself.
Yet concepts like cosmic time and energy density of the universe central to BBC define
energy, space and time as independent, absolute quantities, presupposing that space
exist and time passes even when nothing happens, changes, like in a completely empty
or a oneparticle universe: that energy, space and time exist, are defined even outside
of it. While Newton thought of the rotation of a body as a motion relative to absolute
space, as unrelated to the presence of other objects that space comes with a regular
grid where time passes at the same pace everywhere, relative to which distances and
motions of objects can be quantified; Mach’s insight that the inertia of a body is some
thing it has relative to all other masses in the universe implies that particle properties
are cause and effect of their interactions: if he didn’t express it explicitly, then that may
be because it implies the communication between particles to be instant.
The difference between the points of view of Newton and Mach, between absolutism
and relationalism between the idea that the distance and motion of objects can be
specified relative to absolute space and time and the insight that we only can speak
about the distance and motion of an object relative to other objects comes down to
the difference in the belief that particle properties only are the cause of interactions
that the universe has been created by some outside interference and the idea implied
in Mach’s principle that we live in a selfcreating universe.
It is the classical essentially religious belief that there is an objective reality at the
origin of our observations, that the universe is an object which has certain properties
and is in some particular state as a whole which made it impossible for Mach and
Einstein to conclude that particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as
the effect of their interactions: that their communication is instant and energy, space
and time aren’t the unrelated quantities they are in BBC.
Despite stating that his theory proves that space and time would disappear along with
matter; Einstein couldn’t avoid describing space and energy as independent quantities 2
… the general theory of relativity … offers two possibilities:
1. The universe is spatially infinite. This is possible only if in the universe the average
spatial density of matter, concentrated in the stars, vanishes, i.e., if the ratio of the total
mass of the stars to the volume of the space through which they are scattered indefinitely
approaches zero as greater and greater volumes are considered.
2. The universe is spatially finite. This must be so, if there exists an average density of the
ponderable matter in the universe that is different from zero. The smaller that average
density, the greater is the volume of the universe. I must not fail to mention that a
theoretical argument can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite universe.
1 Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (2005) Abraham Pais, pp. 287288.2 A. Einstein, Geometry and Experience. Lecture before the Prussian Academy of Sciences, January 27, 1921
58
The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there
are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the
total inertia of a body to interaction between it and the other bodies in the universe, as
indeed, ever since Newton's time, gravity has been completely reduced to interaction
between bodies. From the equations of the general theory of relativity it can be deduced
that this total reduction of inertia to interaction between masses as demanded by E.
Mach, for example is possible only if the universe is spatially finite. [my italics]
The problem is that as long as we conceive of energy, space and time as independent
quantities we cannot speak about its size as seen from within without at the same time
stating how large it is as ‘seen’ from the outside, that space and time exist, are defined
even in a universe devoid of energy and even outside of it. Though Einstein agreed with
Mach’s statement that the inertia of an objects is something it has relative to all other
masses in the universe,
…the general theory of relativity does not fully entail Mach’s principle as conceived by
Einstein in the sense that the energy tensor unequivocally and completely determines the
metric of spacetime. It could be shown that a particle in an otherwise empty universe can
possess inertia … Einstein's confidence in the principle gradually waned, so much so that
eventually, a year before his death, he declared that “one should no longer speak at all of
Mach’s principle.” 1
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2
Imagine we are far out in space, in a rocket ship accelerating at a constant rate g = 9.98
m/s². Things will feel just like they do on the surface of the Earth; we will feel a clear up
down direction, bodies will fall to the floor when released, etc. … There is one key element
left out of this success story, however, and it is crucial to understanding why most
physicists reject Einstein's claim to have eliminated absolute states of motion in GRT.
Going back to our accelerating rocket, we accepted Einstein's claim that we could regard
the ship as hovering at rest in a universefilling gravitational field. But one can see why the
Machian interpretation Einstein hoped he could give to the curved spacetimes of his
theory fails to be plausible, by considering a few simple ‘worlds’ permitted by GRT.
In the first place, for our hovering rocket ship, if we are to attribute the gravity field it feels
to matter, there has got to be all this other matter in the universe. But if we regard the
rocket as a mere ‘test body’ (not itself substantially affecting the gravity present or absent
in the universe), then we can note that according to GRT, if we remove all the stars,
galaxies, planets etc. from the world, the gravitational field does not disappear. On the
contrary, it stays basically the same locally, and globally it takes the form of empty
Minkowski spacetime, precisely the quasiabsolute structure Einstein was hoping to
eliminate. … physicists do not doubt that something like our accelerating rocket in
otherwise empty space is possible according to the theory. We see clearly, then, that GRT
fails to satisfy Einstein's own understanding of Mach's Principle, according to which, in the
absence of matter, space itself should not be able to exist.
A second example: GRT allows us to model a single rotating object in an otherwise empty
universe (e.g., a neutron star). Relationalism of the Machian variety says that such
rotation is impossible, since it can only be understood as rotation relative to some sort of
absolute space. In the case of GRT, this is basically right: the rotation is best understood as
rotation relative to a ‘background’ spacetime that is identical to the Minkowski spacetime
of SRT, only ‘curved’ by the presence of matter in the region of the star.
1 Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (2002) Max Jammer P 1502 Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion (2018) Nick Huggett, Carl Hoefer § 9.3 9.4
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetimetheories/ GTR and STR: general and special relativity theory.
Though many physicists consider space and time as relative quantities; in assuming that the rest energy of
particles only is the cause of interactions, they conceive of the rest energy of objects as an absolute
quantity, as something which BFPD can be quantified from outside the universe.
59
The problem that ‘if we remove all the stars, galaxies, planets etc. from the world, the
gravitational field does not disappear’ or that the rotation of a body in an otherwise
empty universe only can ‘be understood as rotation relative to some sort of absolute
space’ obviously doesn’t exist in a universe where particles would vanish without trace
if we could cut off their communication and with it spacetime, any gravitational field,
the universe itself not to mention that in a SCU there is no Minkowski ‘background’
spacetime where time passes at the same pace everywhere.
Though the UP seems to imply that there is ‘an underlying background energy that
exists in space throughout the entire Universe;’1 we only can say that energy exists in
space if energy and space would be independent quantities, if space would exist, be
defined even before there is energy and energy wouldn’t be able to curve space as
energy only can act upon energy. As in a SCU it is localized energy which makes points
at different distances physically different, distinguishable the observed pace of time
and length of rods energy and space aren’t the independent quantities they are in BBC
so here we cannot speak about the vacuum energy density of the universe.
As the universe cannot have some particular property as a whole, space cannot have
an energy density which is the same everywhere so the energy of the virtual particles
of empty space doesn’t just, like the price of real estate, only depend on its location
higher near masses but also on the observer or observing particle, on the distance
they are observed from. If clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more
distant, then so is the frequency the particles of the vacuum energy are observed to
oscillate at: the more distant, the lower their observed energy is so if we associate a
lower energy with less defined properties, then at a larger distance we see the particles
of empty space in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution to the elementary particles of
ordinary matter, of the gravitational field of massive objects they are the interference
products, the offspring and progenitors of.
IF IN A SCU two points only are observed to be spatially separated if time is observed to
pass at a slightly slower pace at the more remote point, if clocks are observed to run at
a slower pace as they are more distant even when at rest, and the gravitational field of
a black hole, say, is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, of spacetime distance from the
observer to the mass center of the hole a distance which as measured within its field is
larger than as ‘measured’ outside of it, i.e., as calculated from its position relative to
surrounding stars then the pace at which he observes a clock to run at different
distances from the hole follows the field gradient, to be slower nearer to the hole’s
mass center, while in empty space, where its field is negligible, the observed pace of a
clock decreases linearly with its distance to the observer. While in a BBU clocks at rest
are observed to run at the same pace at all distances in empty space, to only run at a
slower pace near masses, as the gravitational field at the clock is stronger than it is at
the observer; if in a universe which contains, produces all time inside of it, clocks must
be observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant and the gravitational field
of the hole constitutes a larger spacetime distance between the observer and its mass
center than as seen from outside the field, then a clock at its center must observed to
run at a slower pace than it would at the same distance as ‘measured’ outside its field,
as calculated from its position relative to surrounding stars, there is a gradual transition
between the pace of time inside a gravitational field and in empty space.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy (1242020)
60
We might perhaps say that as seen from afar the gravitational field nearer the hole’s
center constitutes a more private spacetime, whereas farther from the hole it turns
increasingly into the common spacetime as shaped by masses at all distances.
The observed pace of a clock in this common, empty spacetime only varies linearly with
the distance it is observed from if the large scale distribution of mass is more or less
homogenous a homogeneity which is unavoidable in a universe where, as the energy
of objects is cause and effect of their interactions, the energy of an object increases is
created preferably at rest relative to the objects to which it owes its energy.
That is, whereas a SCU for obvious reasons is isotropic to observers everywhere; that
doesn’t mean that it is homogeneous: as it cannot have certain properties, be in any
particular state as a whole, the assumption of homogeneity big bang cosmology is
based upon is invalid so the Friedmann equations which relate the energy density of
the universe to its rate of expansion don’t apply.
While in a BBU time always passes at the same, objective pace everywhere, where it
only is its observed pace which depends on things like the distance and motion of the
observer relative to the observed, not the pace at which it passes, of itself, so to say; in
a SCU there is no such overarching, universewide cosmic pace of time: here its pace
is relative, different to different observers all of which are equally right about its pace.
WHILE IT SEEMS ‘natural to reduce the total inertia of a body to interaction between it
and the other bodies in the universe;’ if its mass equals its inertia then it owes its mass
to all other bodies in the universe. If the rest mass of a particle nevertheless seems to
be a fixed quantity, then that isn’t because it is a privately owned quantity, only the
cause of interactions but because a change would change the rest energy of all other
particles within its IH which would take very much energy to (temporarily) effectuate.
As long as we conceive of particle properties as intrinsic, interaction independent
quantities, only the cause of forces will it remain a mystery what the origin is of their
mass, what gravity is, why it is as it is, why the inertial mass of a body its opposition to
a change of its state of motion equals its gravitational mass as inferred from the
gravitational force it exerts and feels. Wolfgang Rindler: 1
Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting from the assumption
that this correspondence between inertial and (passive) gravitational mass is not
accidental: that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them. However, in
the resulting theory, gravitation is not a force and thus not subject to Newton’s third law,
so the equality of inertial and active gravitational mass ... remains as puzzling as ever. In
general relativity two of Einstein’s concerns merged: gravity as an aspect of inertia, and
the elimination of the absolute (that is, uninfluenceable) set of extended inertial frames.
The new inertial standard is spacetime, and this is directly influenced by active
gravitational mass via the field equations. Yet in the total absence of mass and other
disturbances like gravitational waves, spacetime would straighten itself out into the old
family of extended inertial frames. This would seem to contradict Mach’s idea that all
inertia is caused by cosmic masses. Einstein was eventually equally quite willing to drop
that idea, and so shall we. The equality of inertial and active gravitational mass then
remains as puzzling as ever. It would be nice if the inertial mass of an accelerating particle
were simply a backreaction to its own gravitational field, but that is not the case.
Clearly, if the mass of particles powers and is powered by their energy exchange, then
their attraction due to their gravitational mass obviously cannot be unequal to their
inertia, to the force with which they oppose their attraction, forces with which they
anchor each other to the positions from which they exchange energy to express and
1 Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001),Wolfgang Rindler 2nd edition p 22
61
preserve their, each other’s mass, from which they attract and simultaneously oppose
that attraction, so there’s nothing mysterious about the equality of gravitational and
inertial mass which of course only works if their communication is instant.
Though gravitation in GR isn’t supposed to be ‘a force and thus not subject to Newton’s
third law;’ it doesn’t really matter whether we interpret the acceleration of two masses
floating in empty space toward each other as caused by a force or by the curvature of
spacetime. To say that energy causes spacetime to curve a curvature which affects the
motion of objects is the same as saying that energy causes, forces them to follow a
certain trajectory: as their inertia opposes such coercion, we can as well say that the
energy curving spacetime acts as a counter force to it, as a source of gravity.
As a force cannot be unequal to the counterforce it meets, particles only can accelerate
if both forces change equally: it is gravity, the tendency of energy to increase, to keep
creating itself inherent to a SCU which makes that they can accelerate relative to each
other or contract at places even though both opposite forces remain equally strong,
which drives the events, the changes we experience as the passing of time.
LET’S ASSUME THAT a particle cannot distinguish between the rest mass, distance and
motion of another particle and loosely define the mass they observe each other to
have as equal or proportional to the force between them or to the frequency they
exchange energy at. According to Newton’s law of gravitation, the attraction between
particles A and B is proportional to the mass of A and B and inversely proportional to
the square of their distance. As the force A feels from B the mass A observes B to
have is proportional to A’s own mass, it depends on A’s own mass and its distance to B
what mass it observes B to have. If the force A exerts on B equals the force B exerts
upon A and we could increase A’s mass without changing their distance if we increase
the force A exerts on B then we also would increase the force B exerts on A and with it
the mass A observes B to have, so Newton’s 3rd law implies, all by itself, that the mass
of particles is cause and effect of their interactions, of forces between them and hence
that their communication is instant as indeed, a force between them only can remain
equal to the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke if their communication is instant.
Clearly, if when particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions with all
particles within their IH, of forces between them, a force cannot be either attractive or
repulsive, of itself, if their attraction due to one kind of charge only can increase as
much as their opposition to it, as their repulsion due to another kind of charge, then, as
will be explored in § 7, this has farreaching consequences for the unification of forces.
The greater their mass is, the stronger their gravitational attraction and hence their
repulsion, their opposition to it, their inertia, the more energy it takes to change their
distance or relative motion, the greater their inertia, their mass is.1
It is because of the equality of mass and inertia why the acceleration of a body in free
fall in a gravitational field is independent from its own mass: the greater its mass, the
stronger the gravitational force it feels but the greater its inertia, its opposition to it is.
The greater their mass is and/or the smaller their distance when at rest relative to each
other, the stronger their attraction and opposition to it is, the more energy it takes to
change their distance as it takes more energy per unit distance to change their distance
as they are nearer to each other, the more it matters, energetically, how large or small
their distance exactly is, the less uncertain or indefinite their distance is.2
1 As discussed above, circular reasonings are appropriate in a selfcreating selfcontained universe.2 This is contrary to the customary definition according to which the uncertainty in the position of a
particle is smaller as there is less energy involved in a change of its position.
62
If at equilibrium, at a shorter distance both their attraction and repulsion is stronger
and a shorter, less indefinite distance according to the UP corresponds to a higher
energy which must be supplied by the environment so it is the environment which
powers their opposition to a further decrease of their distance, then the UP can be
thought of as acting like a repulsive force. If when their energy is cause and effect of
forces between them, a force only can be as strong as the counter force it meets, then
gravity and the uncertainty principle are the two sides of a single coin.
If a force cannot exceed the counterforce it meets, then we cannot accuse gravity of
causing massive particles to contract as time passes, say that mass causally precedes
gravity: it is their contraction, the creation, the increase of their energy which increases
both their attraction and their opposition to it, their mass and inertia, which drives the
events, the changes we experience as the passing of time.
4
The energy of empty spacetimeThe belief that it is the same time, that time passes at the same pace everywhere no
matter whether or not something happens, changes, together with a concept like the
energy density of the universe show that BBC conceives of energy, space and time as
unrelated quantities: that space and time exist, that the length of the meter and
duration of the second are defined even in a universe devoid of energy and even
outside of it, that it lives in a space and time realm not of its own making, as if it is an
ordinary object we only for practical difficulties cannot observe from the outside.
As a result, the expansion of the universe had to be thought of as the increase of the
distance in space between objects as time passes with the same factor anywhere, so in
BBC space is produced at the same rate everywhere at the same moment in cosmic
time, a rate which observations indicate is different in different epochs.
Besides omitting to explain how the universe can have a beginning if when it can create
itself, it always could; as its creation violates conservation laws, it isn’t surprising that
big bang cosmology also fails to offer even the beginning of an idea about the origin of
the energy created at the big bang of the rest energy of the particles created and of
the kinetic energy of their motion away from each other, energies the relative amounts
of which cannot be explained even in principle as they could have had any value at all.
As it cannot explain the observed flatness and isotropy of the universe, BBC had to
resort to further magic cosmic inflation to cause it, to save the big bang tale.
As observations seem to indicate that its expansion, after having slowed down the first
nine billion years due to gravity, suddenly started to accelerate some four billion years
ago, one had to propose the appearance of a repulsive, antigravitational kind of energy
to drive this acceleration, an energy which retrospectively also was tasked to drive the
inflation of the universe shortly into the big bang, be it that its density was very much
higher in the inflationary epoch.
While it is a complete mystery how this energy could know when it ought to assume a
nonzero value to start accelerating the expansion of space, how its value could be quite
different in different epochs high during inflation, zero the first nine billion years and
incomprehensibly small at present cosmologists nevertheless managed to convince
each other that this energy is an intrinsic property of space not bothering about the
question how, as the newly created space comes with the same energy density so
ought to keep expanding forever, it at the end of inflation knew to start to convert
63
itself into the particles of the standard model instead of keep inflating space, how it
knew what properties they should pop up with. To explain these improbabilities, BBC
invents more unlikely mechanisms instead of explaining things from first principle.
However this may be; the point is that space in BBC is thought of as some rarefied kind
of stuff which is the same everywhere, always, something which can be bought per
cubic meter, so to say, as if it comes imprinted with millimeter marks, a grid where
clocks run at the same pace everywhere and relative to which we can specify locations
and velocities of objects, as if space and time, the length of the meter and duration of
the second are defined even in a space devoid of energy, even outside the universe.
The idea that space comes with a certain energy density doesn’t come out of the blue.
As according to the UP the strength of a field at any point in space and its rate of
change cannot both have exact values simultaneously be and remain zero empty
space is supposed to contain energy in the form of fields the quanta of which virtual
particle antiparticle pairs continually pop up in space to annihilate after a time which
is shorter as their energy is higher, implying ‘that over sufficiently small distances and
sufficiently brief intervals of time, the “very geometry of spacetime fluctuates.”1
Since a higher energy (E = hv = hc/ λ) corresponds to a higher frequency v or smaller
wavelength λ to a shorter time, a smaller volume of space this vacuum energy is
supposed to give rise to a huge energy density of empty space:
The density of this energy depends critically on where the frequency of the zeropoint
fluctuations cease. Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at
a tiny distance scale called the Planck length (10−35 m), it is argued that the zeropoint
fluctuations must cease at the corresponding Planck frequency. If that is the case, then the
zeropoint energy density would be 108 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant
energy at the center of the Sun. … This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe
that even though zeropoint energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of quantum
field theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations by ad
hoc means.2
Because the gravitational effects this vacuum energy should have aren't actually
observed, some physicists started to doubt quantum mechanics itself.3
Gerard ‘t Hooft, about his fellow Nobel laureate, Martinus Veltman
Veltman was not to be convinced that what we call empty space perhaps is filled to the
brim with invisible particles. He would persist for a long time that he thought this
incredible. … For shouldn’t all these particles in empty space betray their presence by
their gravitational field? You can establish a theory in such a manner that this
gravitational field exactly is compensated by other invisible particles or by a mysterious
contribution of empty space itself. How nature manages to mask the gravitational effects
of invisible vacuum particles so completely that we don’t notice any effect, is a mystery 4
The most radical view ... is that space and time only exist as a separate set of points; [that]
particles can only be at those points but not in between. … this would be the most logical
interpretation, for ‘quantum fluctuations’ would ensure that all points where particles can
be automatically stay at least one Planck length apart. But it isn’t that easy, for how do we
then explain how these points are related to form the known space and time? 5
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam#Background (1282019)2 E. W. Davis c. s., http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Davis_STAIF06.pdf P 1, 2, 53 Lee Smolin (in The Trouble with Physics (2006) p. 319): “Like ‘t Hooft, much of his [Roger Penrose’s] work
in the last two decades is motivated by his conviction that quantum mechanics is wrong.” 4 De bouwstenen van de schepping (1st ed. 1992) Gerard ’t Hooft, p 197. This quote does not appear in the
6th ed. 2002) (In search of the ultimate building blocks)5 De bouwstenen van de schepping ( 6th ed. 2002) Gerard ‘t Hooft, p. 106
64
It is clear that as long as we think of the rest energy of particle as privately owned,
interaction space independent quantities, only the cause of forces, and hence of
space as something the nature of which then shouldn’t be affected, be curved by
whatever it may come to contain, it will remain a mystery how, different ‘points are
related to form the known space and time,’ what the origin is of the mass of particles,
what gravity is, why it is as it is.
The need for a kind of energy to drive the inflation and accelerating expansion of space
to save the big bang tale apparently outweighed the consideration that as gravitons
the hypothetical quanta of gravity, elementary particles which mediate the force of
gravity1 couple to everything which has energy, including the virtual particles the UP
implies space to contain, it ought to make the universe contract instead of expand.
If energy only can drive a force if it can be localized, if it comes in quanta which have a
position to act from and be acted upon, then it is hard to see how the same particles
can gravitationally attract and at the same time power a repulsion exceeding their
attraction to increase their distance, drive the inflation and accelerating expansion of
space, especially as the increase of their distance should increase their mass since we
have agreed that if they contract at places, their mass decreases as they emit energy.
The idea that the same particles can be the source of two opposite, independent kinds
of energy only might make sense if we were to ignore Newton’s 3rd law, if their energy
only would be the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions: if
they, the universe would have been created by some outside Creator Who then either
has preordained when the expansion of the universe should start to accelerate at its
creation or Who keeps adjusting its rate as we speak, whenever it suits Her.
While the UP in a BBU does imply spacetime space to contain energy; the problem is
that even if it would drive the expansion of space, it doesn’t say where that energy is to
come from if it is to obey the energy conservation law nor what its density ought to be.
As a particle in a SCU has no infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary separating its
energy from (its effect on) spacetime and the magnitude and sign of its energy varies in
a wavelike manner within every cycle of its oscillation, then so does the indefiniteness
in the position from which it(s energy) acts and is acted upon. As it is localized energy
which makes positions at different distances physically different and the extent to
which it is localized the definiteness in the position it acts from varies within every
cycle of its oscillation, what we call ‘particle’ is a wave phenomenon, a modulation in
and of spacetime, an area where the extent to which spacetime is defined, to which
the observed pace of clocks and length of rods differs from one point, one distance to
its mass center to the next varies in a wavelike manner in space and time.
If the energy of the virtual particles the UP insists empty spacetime to ‘contain’ is cause
and effect of their interactions with everything within their IH, then this suggests that
these particles/waves are the volatile interference products of the real particles/waves
of the galaxies in the vicinity of which they pop up: that it are the quanta of their
gravitational field quote marks on contain as this suggests that space exists even in the
absence of energy, as in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime.
The farther from masses, the longer the wavelengths of the interfering waves is, the
lower the energy of the resulting virtual particles of empty space is, the less definite
their position is, the less defined, the emptier spacetime is, the less the pace of clocks
and length of rods differs from one point to the next in the area where they can be
localized, the less a particle can have a predilection for one location above the other,
1 A supposition which is at odds with the idea in general relativity theory that gravity isn’t a force.
65
the less definite its position and hence the behavior is from which its properties can be
inferred, the less definite, the less evolved its properties are observed to be.
THE FARTHER FROM masses, the emptier spacetime is, the less a massive particle can
have a predilection for one position above another, the less it can have a welldefined
position, the less it can be at rest in such region and from there express its mass, exert
force, obstruct the contraction of particles to galaxies, the more it tends to migrate to
massive object surrounding the region, as if it is repulsed by empty space or attracted
by masses surrounding it, the emptier spacetime tends to stay.
If the virtual particles of empty spacetime indeed are the quanta of the gravitational
field of galaxies, then it is conceivable that they may eventually evolve to elementary
particles, be absorbed by the galaxies, and, given the tendency of energy to increase,
to keep creating itself, to eventually end up in the black hole at the center of their
galaxy, the increased mass of the galaxy increasing the energy of the virtual particles of
its gravitational field … particles which in turn evolve to elementary particles.
If particles only can contract to clusters, their energy only increase at places where
they can remain at rest relative to the objects, the galaxies to which they owe their
energy and to the energy of which they contribute, where forces are equal from all
directions, in areas at the center of such large, empty regions, then this may result in
what in a BBU would be a homogeneous, but in a SCU is an isotropic mass distribution.
AS SPACE ISN’T defined in the absence of energy, we cannot (as in quantum loop
gravity which tries to unify GR with QM, where space and time are granular, discrete)
think of space as if it comes in minimum (Plancklength) sized cubes, building blocks of
space, nor can we think of time as passing jerkily in discrete amounts.
Like there can be no universewide minimum distance as to quantify it presupposes the
existence of a measurer the marks of which are separated by even shorter distances in
which case space would be defined at infinitesimal scale, that space, the length of the
meter then would be defined even outside the universe; a minimum duration implies a
the existence of a clock the marks of which are separated by even shorter time
intervals, not to mention that if space would come in minimum building blocks, the
universe would be an object which has some particular graininess as a whole.
The idea that time passes in discrete, minimum time intervals originates in the naïve
belief that there is a universewide now, that the universe lives in a time realm not of
its own making, that time eternally passes at the same, particular, unperturbable pace,
of itself, whether or not something happens, changes, even though this is impossible as
to quantify its pace whether it passes slow or fast would require the existence of a
clock outside the universe to compare its pace with, a clock the pace of which to
establish in turn would require the existence of yet another clock … etcetera.
If when the energy of particles is a wavelike quantity, they only can be at equilibrium as
they exchange energy in counter phase which they are at distances equal to (2n +1)/2
times the wavelength they exchange energy in (with n = 1, 2c …) then it isn’t space
which is quantified, which it comes in discrete cubes the size of which is the same
everywhere, but the distances between particles.
Though it takes a discrete amount of energy to jump from one equilibrium distance to
the next whereby n, the number of waves which fit in their distance changes with 1
and the wavelength they exchange energy in shrinks or stretches at the jump; if the
amount of energy which is emitted or absorbed at the jump depends on their distance
and on the wavelength they exchange energy in, then so does the length of the jump.
66
The farther apart they are and the lower their rest energy is, the longer, the less
definite the wavelength they exchange energy in, the less definite their distance is and
hence the less definite the length of the jump between two successive equilibrium
distances is, the less it matters energetically how large it exactly is, as if it is less
precisely measured off, so to say as opposed to ‘t Hoofts view where particles are
separated by distances equal to an integer number of minimum building blocks of
space Planck lengths everywhere, independent from their rest energy and distance,
as if space and time exist independent from what it may come to contain. If we were to
say that space is granular, then the size of the building blocks of space would be less
definite, their dimensions fuzzier as observed from a larger distance which is another
way of saying that spacetime is less defined as observed from a larger distance.
AS IN THE classical view time passes at the same pace everywhere and the rest energy
of a particle is an intrinsic, static quantity (ignoring quantum fluctuations), it at all times
exists somewhere with all its properties at full strength, with 100% of its energy, it at
all times ought to have both an exact location and momentum, the UP for a time was
thought to say that we only for practical reasons the fact that the measurement of
one affects the magnitude of the other to a minimal, unpredictable extent cannot
determine both its exact position and momentum at the same time. On closer
examination it became clear that nature itself to some extent is indeterminate, that
there is an indefiniteness in both its position and momentum or in its energy and the
time it has that energy.
As in a selfcreating universe the magnitude and sign of the energy of a particle varies
within every cycle of its oscillation and we define the indefiniteness in its position as
being inversely proportional to its energy to its rate of change in space and time then
the indefiniteness in the position of its mass center varies in tandem with its
momentum in space and time. Whereas at the times in its cycle when its energy, its
rate of change in space ΔE/Δx and time ΔE/Δt is maximal, the indefiniteness in its
position is minimal, its mass is maximal as energy is a stronger source of gravity, acts
more like mass as the area it acts from is minimal and its velocity minimal;1 at the
times when its rate of change is minimal, the indefiniteness in the position its energy
acts from is maximal, the indefiniteness in its momentum minimal.
If the indefiniteness in the position of a particle varies with its energy, with its rate of
change in space and time and it is its energy which makes points at different distances
physically different the observed pace of clocks and length of rods then a particle is a
modulation in and of spacetime.
We might say that it alternates a phase in which it, its energy acts more like a particle,
from a welldefined position with a phase in which its energy acts more like a wave
phenomenon, more equally, more simultaneously and weaker from all points over a
larger area of space, so if energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, then so is spacetime,
as if it alternately expands and contracts or rather, that the extent to which different
positions differ physically varies in space and time.
In the picture where space and time are discrete, granular, where particles only can be
at points separated by Planck lengths and not in between, we only can ask ‘how these
points are related to form the known space and time’ if the rest energy of particles
would be an intrinsic, interaction space and time independent quantity, if energy,
space and time would be unrelated quantities, in a universe which lives in a space and
time continuum not of its own making, if energy, space and time would be defined
even outside the universe, if it would be an ordinary object.
1 If at the speed of light the position of a particle is completely indefinite, then that suggests that its
position is less definite as its velocity is higher.
67
5
The distance redshift inherent to a selfcreating universeIF WHEN TWO hydrogen atoms in the same excited state at different distances from an
observer emit a photon as they deexcite to the ground state, then the photons must
be observed to have a different wavelength, a different energy: if a different distance
between the light source and observer constitutes a physically different situation, then
the photons cannot be observed to have the exact same energy. If the observed color
of the light of a galaxy depends on the rate of change of its distance as a different rate
of change of its distance is a physically different situation, its color also should vary
with its distance when at rest if the information about its distance is to be conveyed.
The objection that the time the photon transmission takes contains information about
the distance of its source only might hold if light would move at a finite speed through
space, in time, in a universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making.
If the universe by definition has no external reality so doesn’t live in a time realm not of
its own making but contains, produces all time within, then clocks cannot be observed
to run at the same pace, the same spectral lines of galaxies be observed to have the
same wavelength at all distances even when they are at rest relative to us though it
remains to be seen whether or not a distance redshift implies some kind of expansion if
in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime. If when the properties of
particles, of the atoms they form are cause and effect of their interactions with all
other particles, their communication is instant so an atom cannot emit a photon
without the cooperation of the atom which is to absorb that photon, then, as will be
discussed in § 9, this must mean that that both atoms together determine the time of
its emission and its energy an energy which then ought to depend on their distance
and its rate of change. If in a SCU two points only are observed to be separated in
space, at different distances if clocks at both points are observed to run at a slightly
different pace, then the observed color of a light source shouldn’t only depend on the
rate of change of its distance relative to the observer but also on their distance.
If the pitch of the siren of an ambulance only depends on it velocity relative to us, not
on its distance, then that is because the siren is the unambiguous cause of the sound
and sound propagates at a finite velocity through space the air in time. By contrast, if
to the photon its transmission is instant, if from the point of view of the photon there
is no distance in space nor time between the atoms it is transmitted so it only can be
emitted with the cooperation of the atom which is to absorb it, then the atom emitting
it is not the unambiguous, autonomous cause of its transmission so its emission cannot
causally precede its absorption elsewhere: as a different distance between the atoms is
a physically, energetically different situation, the energy of the photon should depend
on their distance and hence on its rate of change and only is possible if atoms can be
in different states simultaneously.
IF THE SIGN of the energy or charge of particle A alternates at a constant frequency (so
it is a source of electromagnetic radiation) then from the point of view of particle B at
rest relative to A, able to detect that radiation, the position from which A emits
radiation is less definite as their distance is greater. The farther apart they are, the less
definite according to B the distance is from which A emits electromagnetic waves, the
less definite the distance is between the tops of two successive wave crests, the less
definite, the longer the wavelength of the wave is, the less definite the time is at which
B observes A’s charge sign to flip, the lower the frequency is of the radiation, at which
B observes A to oscillate at or, equivalently, the slower B observes time to pass at A.
68
Now if B doesn’t just detect that radiation but its frequency is the frequency at which A
and B exchange energy at if any kind of charge contributes to, is an expression of the
energy of particles then that frequency depends on the rest energy of A and B, their
distance and its rate of change. If when a particle to express and preserve its properties
exchanges energy with particles at all distances, it does so in many frequencies at once,
then its energy can be thought of as the superposition of energies, of all wavelengths it
exchanges energy in with particles at all distances: the greater (shorter) their distance,
the longer (shorter) the wavelength or the lower (higher) the frequency they exchange
energy in, at, the less (more) they contribute to each other’s energy, the less (more)
their interaction horizons, their universes coincide, overlap, the less (more) related
their behavior, their properties are.
IT TAKES MUCH more energy to increase the distance between a magnet and a nail
from 1 to 2 millimeter than to increase it from 1 to 2 meter, so if we were to define
their distance in terms of the energy involved in a change of their distance define the
unit length as the displacement which takes one joule of energy, say then we would
conclude that there is increasingly more space ‘contracted’ within what to us looks like
a smaller volume nearer to the magnet, as measured with a measurer the length of
which isn’t affected by the magnetic field.
Similarly, if it takes more energy to increase the distance between two masses when
they are nearer to each other than the same displacement when farther apart and /or
their mass is greater and we were to define the unit length as the displacement of a
massive test particle in the gravitational field of an object a black hole, say which
takes one joule of energy and use this to construct a measuring rod the distance
between any two successive marks of which adjusts to the local strength of the field in
such manner that they always show an energy difference of one joule it takes to
change the distance between the particle and the hole, then such ruler would shrink
nearer to the hole, as seen from outside its gravitational field. The nearer to the hole
and the more massive it is i.e., the less indefinite as seen from outside its gravitational
field the position of its mass center is, the point from which its energy acts as a source
of gravity the stronger the gravitational field at the measurer is compared to the field
at the observer, the smaller she observes the distance between the markings of the
measurer to be, as if she looks at it from a larger distance like we see the white stripes
on the middle of the road shrink at larger distances which she does indeed.
Since as measured locally the speed of light is the same everywhere, a flashing light
moving at a constant velocity toward the hole as measured locally, the distant observer
will observe the flasher decelerate, the frequency of the flashes decrease and its light
shift to red nearer to the hole because as seen from outside of it, the gravitational field
of the hole constitutes an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime and, in a SCU, clocks at rest
must be observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant which is to say, as
their spacetime distance is larger. Quote marks on condensed as it wrongly suggests
that the mass of the hole only distorts, warps, contracts an already existing amount of
space, a volume which would be undistorted in the absence of the hole: while the hole
does curve spacetime in its vicinity, it is itself a local extension of spacetime which
unfolds to the test particle penetrating its gravitational field, that spacetime.
It is because as measured inside its field, the spacetime distance between the observer
and the hole’s center is much larger than as ‘measured’ outside of it, i.e., as calculated
from their locations relative to surrounding stars why he observes a clock nearer to the
hole run at a slower pace than a clock at the ‘same’ location when there would be no
black hole: because in a SCU clocks at rest must be observed to run at a slower pace in
empty space, far from masses, as their spacetime distance to the observer is larger.
69
So unlike in a BBU where time passes at the same pace everywhere in empty space, far
from masses (in Minkowski space), where clocks at rest only are observed to run at a
slower pace in a gravitational field or when they recede faster from; in a SCU they also
are observed to run at a slower pace when at rest in empty spacetime be it that the
pace difference is so small that it only is observable at large distances.
The velocity and gravitational length contraction and time dilation of relativity theory
would have been discovered much earlier had one realized that as by definition there
is nothing outside the universe, that it only exists as seen from within so doesn’t live in
a time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time within, time cannot
be observed to pass at the same pace everywhere. As energy, space and time in a SCU
are intrinsically related, space cannot, as in BBC, be thought of as some homogeneous,
rarefied 3dimensional kind of stuff which is the same everywhere, always, as if it
comes with millimeter marks, of time as passing at the same pace everywhere. We
only can speak about the properties, size, age and state of the universe if we imagine
looking at it from the outside, if it would live in a space and time realm not if its own
making, if it has been created by some outside intervention.
The gravitational time dilation aka gravitational redshift of general relativity in fact can
be identified as the (spacetime) distance redshift inherent to a selfcreating universe.
6
The selfcreation of energy: particles and antiparticlesIF, AS IN the classical view, the rest energy of particles would be a privately owned,
static quantity, only the cause of interactions, then the sign of their electric charge
would either be positive or negative, always. As in that case the electric repulsion
between the parts of a finitesized electron would be strong enough to tear it apart, it
is thought to be a dimensionless pointparticle. The problem that interaction energies
and forces between charged point particles then would become infinite at infinitesimal
distances implying them to have an infinite electric charge is solved by positing that
they are shrouded in a cloud of shortlived virtual electronpositron pairs which are
temporally created out of the force fields of the real particles, of electric dipoles which
by orienting themselves in the electric field of a real charged particle screen its
supposedly infinite bare selfenergy and electric charge, resulting in the finite values
observed in experiments, a phenomenon called vacuum polarization.
If in a universe where particles exchange energy to express and preserve their, each
other’s properties, their energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, in one phase as
positive as it is negative in the next and any kind of charge contributes to, is an
expression of their energy so sign and magnitude of their electric charge alternates
within every cycle of their oscillation, their energy exchange, there obviously is no such
infinity problem, nor would there be a repulsive force between the parts of a finite
sized electron to tear it apart if it could have a definite size at all, an infinitely sharp
boundary where the electron, its mass and charge end and their effect on space, their
gravitational and electric field begins which in a SCU it doesn’t.
As the attraction between particles only can become as strong as their repulsion, their
opposition to it, to an inertia they owe to the same particles to which they owe their
energy, their charge, interaction energies and forces between particles only becomes
infinite if we spend an infinite amount of energy to push them infinitely close together
70
so the uncertainty in their distance becomes infinitesimal, corresponding to an infinite
energy, an infinite mass and electric charge. As the energy to decrease (the uncertainty
in) their distance has to be supplied by the environment, it is the environment which
determines the distance at which they are at equilibrium, and with it the strength of
forces between them, the effective mass and charge they exhibit at that distance.
While the infinities which result from the assumption that their charge is an intrinsic,
static quantity, only the cause of forces, can be removed mathematically; if when the
energy powering a force between them is cause and effect of their interactions, a force
cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, if when their energy is proportional to
the frequency its sign alternates at, the same goes for the sign and magnitude of their
charge, then their mass and charge obviously cannot become infinite, so in a SCU there
is no need for virtual electronpositron pairs to shield an infinite bare charge.
If we collide charged particles at higher momentum, they exhibit a greater charge, then
that isn’t because at a shorter distances the cloud of virtual electronpositron pairs is
thinner, less effective in screening their supposedly infinite electric charge, but because
by decreasing (the indefiniteness in) their distance, we increase (UP) their energy and
hence the magnitude of the electric charge.
If the energy of a particle is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, in one phase as positive as it
is negative in the next, then the same goes for the sign (or color) of any kind of charge
which contributes to, which is an expression of their energy.1
If we imagine an electron as a spherical wave and assign the color red to the phase in
which its energy sign is positive and green to the phase in which its sign is negative,
then a cross section would show circular bands the charge sign or color of which
alternates from one band to the next from red to green to red to … etc. whereby the
magnitude of the electric field the intensity of the color is maximal at the middle of
each band, places where its energy, its rate of change in space and time is maximal,
while its energy, the strength of its electric field decreases toward the edges of the
bands, where their color pales, where its energy sign the color of the band changes
and its energy / charge for a short time is zero.2
If when the energy of the electron, its rate of change in space and time varies within
every cycle of its oscillation, then so does the indefiniteness in its position, so if its
position twice in every cycle becomes completely indefinite as its energy for a short
time becomes zero, then we might say that in this phase it returns or picks up itself the
energy it alternately borrows from and lends to the particles within its IH.
It would then in every cycle of its oscillation alternately act like what classically would
be a fermion, boson, antifermion and antiboson reminding of supersymmetry, a
theory which tries to figure out how gravity might be related to the other forces of
nature by investigating the relation between fermions, particles which have properties,
and bosons, particles to communicate those properties, a theory which posits that
every elementary fermion has a (supersymmetric) bosonic partner and vice versa.
Fermions are extreme individuals. No matter how hard you try, you will not get two of
them to do the same thing in the same place there must always be a difference between
them. Bosons, on the other hand, have no such constraint and are happy to join each
other in a common dance. This is why electrons, which are fermions, sit on separate shells
around atomic nuclei. If they were bosons, they would instead sit together on the same
shell … Supersymmetry postulates that the laws of nature remain the same when bosons
1in the sense that the three ‘colors’ of the quarks of baryons add to ‘white’ i.e., to a zero color charge.
2 That is, if there would be a universewide present. As particles at different distances observe it to be in a
different phase, we cannot really say that it vanishes for a short time every time its energy sign flips.
71
are exchanged with fermions. This means that every known boson must have a fermionic
partner and every fermion a bosonic partner. But besides differing in their fermionic or
bosonic affiliation, partner particles must be identical. … Unfortunately, the equations of
supersymmetry do not tell us what the masses of the SUSY partners are. … Besides
revealing that bosons and fermions are the two sides of the same coin, SUSY also aids in
the unification of fundamental forces …1
If when their properties are cause and effect of their interactions, particles only can be
identical if their interaction horizons are identical, if they are at the same place at the
same time; as the uncertainty in their position would be infinitesimal, corresponding to
an infinite energy, it isn’t surprising that identical fermions cannot be at the same place
at the same time, be in the same state and move in the exact same fashion. Though the
the distinction between fermions and bosons has been very helpful to quantify particle
interactions; there is something artificial in the distinction between particles which
have properties and particles to express them, to mediate forces since if when, as in
the current view, photons and gravitons move at a finite light velocity, this implies that
fermion properties then only are the cause and not also the effect of their interactions,
meaning that the origin of their energy of any kind of charge which contributes to,
which is a manifestation of their energy cannot be understood even in principle.
If when the universe, if quantum mechanics ultimately cannot be understood causally,
only rationally if particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions their
communication is instant so massless bosons cannot be ascribed a position, then we
cannot think of it as real, physical particles which move through space, in time, even
though the energy they are thought to transmit comes in discrete, particlelike packets.
Whereas in a SCU every particle is its own antiparticle, its energy proportional to the
frequency its energy / charge sign alternates at; an electron which always is in counter
phase with a regular electron would, if they could simultaneously be at the same place
without noticing, affecting (annihilating) each other, act like what classically would be
an antielectron, accelerate in opposite directions in an electric or magnetic field.
This isn’t to say that there are no positrons; only that an ‘antiparticle’ in a SCU is a
temporary energy repository which for the time it exists always is at such place and
moves in such manner that it is in counterphase with an electron at the same place and
time. If it is deflected in an opposite direction in an electric or magnetic field than an
electron, then that isn't because electrons and positrons are separate particle species
the charge sign of which is fixed and opposite, but because the positron is an electron
which is in counterphase with the environment it is created in, existing as long as
nature hasn’t decided when to annihilate it with its regular counterpart(icle).
Though the strength of a static electric or magnetic field is on average constant in time;
if it is generated by electrons the energy / charge sign of which alternates, then so does
the sign of the field at every point of space, so the positron, oscillating in counterphase
with the electron, feels a force from a direction opposite to that what the electron
feels at the same place and time so is deflected by the field in the opposite direction.
IF ELECTRICALLY CHARGED particles would autonomously, spontaneously emit and
absorb virtual photons and gravitons to communicate their charge and mass and their
emission (absorption) decreases (increases) their energy, then their energy, their
charge and mass would randomly vary in time, so an electron, say, might lose all its
energy and cease to exist if not for the uncertainty principle.
1 Hossenfelder S. (2018) Lost in math p. 11 12.
72
While according to the UP the variation ΔE in the energy of the electron may last for a
shorter time Δt as it is higher; it is unclear how the particles in its environment can
know when to replete a deficit in its energy, when they are to send virtual photons and
gravitons of the right energy in the right direction, especially if when they move at a
finite (light) velocity, the emitting particles would have to be clairvoyant to predict the
position, velocity and energy of the electron at any future time to ensure the timely
arrival of photons and gravitons they send toward the electron to replete its energy.
How can the electron and the particles in its environment know what properties they
ought to have and ensure that any variation in their rest energy obeys the UP?
This only can be understood if particles express and at the same time preserve their,
each other’s properties by exchanging energy, if the exchange, their communication is
instant, so if the energy they observe, cause each other to have is proportional to the
frequency they exchange energy at or inversely proportional to the period Δt of the
loan then the UP is just another formulation of the PlanckEinstein relation E = hv.
An instant communication means that a particle cannot autonomously emit photons
and gravitons, that the fluctuation in its energy isn’t random but is the expression of
the wave character of particles, of their energy, something the sign and magnitude of
which varies within every cycle of their energy exchange: of the fact that we live in a
universe where particles, their properties are cause and effect of their interactions.
If according to the UP the energy of a particle cannot both have an exact value and its
rate of change be zero implies its energy to be a dynamic quantity, something which, as
its magnitude cannot increase indefinitely, eventually has to stop increasing and start
to decrease to increase negatively then this implies its sign to alternate, meaning that
a particle oscillates between what classically would be a particle and antiparticle state:
that any elementary particle is its own antiparticle.
The higher the rate of change of its energy is, the frequency it exchanges energy at, at
which the sign of its energy, of its electric charge, of the ‘color’ of the charge powering
the strong force alternates, the higher its energy is, the higher the effective magnitude
of any kind of charge is in interactions. If when its energy varies within every cycle of its
oscillation and with it the indefiniteness in its position and momentum, then we cannot
predict the exact momentum and position of two particles colliding in a collider at the
time of the collision. As we cannot keep track of the exact location and motion of all
particles to which they owe their energy, which affect their position and momentum,
the state they are in as they collide it is impossible to predict the outcome of the
experiment: we only can calculate the probability of each of the possible results of the
collision, values we find if we repeat the experiment many times.
If when particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, a particle has no
infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary where it, its properties end and space begins,
the environment to which it owes its properties, and we would take the indefiniteness
in the position as a measure of its size, then its size would vary within every cycle of its
oscillation so in a SCU there are no dimensionless point particles, no infinite charge
which needs to be screened to keep the illusion intact that the electric charge of a
particle is an intrinsic and hence static quantity, only the cause of forces.
If we encounter an infinite or infinitesimal value for some quantity or particle property,
then that usually is because we omitted to specify relative to what it has that value, an
omission which only would be justified if the quantity or property in question would be
an objective quantity, only the cause of interactions, or, as in the case of a gravitational
singularity, if we conceive of energy and space as independent quantities, if energy and
space would be defined even outside the universe.
73
IN A UNIVERSE which contains two particles A and B the wavelength they exchange
energy in might vary continuously with their distance if not that to be able to exert
force upon each other requires the existence of particles in opposite directions to act
upon A and B, to oppose the force they exert upon each other, particles which to be
able to offer such assistance, in turn would require the existence of other particles at
larger distances … etcetera and their communication to be instant.
If when the rest energy of particles is kept constant by their energy exchange with all
other particles within their IH, two particles only can be at equilibrium when in counter
phase, at distances equal to (2n + 1)/2 times the wavelength they exchange energy in
(with n an integer), then the distances at which they can be at equilibrium changes in
discrete steps. If their distance is quantified, then so is the energy they emit or absorb
as they jump from one equilibrium distance to the other, a jump whereby both their
distance and exchange wavelength changes with a discrete amount.
If the energy of a particle in one phase as positive as it is negative in the next, then we
can think of their creation as the event whereby particle A pops up with a positive
energy it borrows from B, which then pops up with an equal, negative energy if the
energy conservation law is to be obeyed. However, if when A borrows all its energy
from B, then A and B would only exist to each other, not to the particles in the midst of
which they pop up in which case A and B wouldn’t even exist to each other: only if
they borrow and lend part of their energy from and to the particles in the midst of
which they pop up particles which similarly are in statu nascendi do they all start to
exist to each other which only works if their communication is instant.
As according to the UP their lifetime the period of the loan is inversely proportional to
their energy, they would vanish as their time is up unless they set up a continuous
energy exchange by means of which they force each other to reappear again and again
after every disappearance at about the same place, moving in about the same manner
as they did in the previous cycle, their energy sign alternating at the frequency they
exchange energy at, at which they alternately pop up, vanish to reappear with an
opposite energy sign, oscillating between opposite states, between what classically
would be a particle and antiparticle state.
If a larger distance between particles is a less definite distance, corresponding (UP) to a
lower energy they observe each other to have, to a longer, less definite wavelength
they exchange energy in, to a lower frequency they observe each other to oscillate at,
then that is the same as saying that according to one particle time passes at a slower
pace at the other as their spacetime distance is larger, implying a distance redshift.
That is, it isn’t so that space and time already exist even in the absence of energy, that
the energy of particles increases as the uncertainty in their position decreases as they
contract to clusters, as they move through space, in time toward each other; it rather is
the increase of their energy, the appearance of localized energy, which makes positions
at different distances physically different, which turns an abstract, mathematical space
where it is the same time everywhere into a real physical spacetime where clocks are
observed to run at a slower pace and measuring rods look shorter as they are more
distant even when at rest a spacetime which continues to exist, to be alternately
created and uncreated where the extent to which adjoining positions differ physically
varies in space and time as the particles keep creating and uncreating each other, as
they force each other to reappear time and time again after every disappearance.
We cannot think of energy, space and time as independent quantities: if the energy of
a particle which makes positions in the area where it can be localized physically
different is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, then so is spacetime at microscopic scale.
74
If when the energy of a particle, its sign and magnitude varies within every cycle of its
oscillation and with it the observed pace of clocks and length of rods in the area where
it can be localized, then a particle can be said to alternately move in forward and
backward time direction about some zerotime point, that the hands of clocks in the
area where we can localize it alternately move in opposite directions, the velocity at
which they rotate varying in space and time. Only at macroscopic scale can we
unambiguously speak about the direction of time which in a SCU is driven by gravity,
the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself.
So it isn’t that, as in BBC, space and time already exist, that time eternally passes at the
same, particular, unperturbable pace everywhere even before there are particles, as if
waiting for them to magically pop up out of nothing, from one moment in cosmic time
to the next, particles which appear readymade with all properties measured off at
random locations as it are thought of as intrinsic, fixed, interaction space and time
independent quantity if we can say that they pop up at different places if at the big
bang the energy density of the universe was infinite,1 its size infinitesimal.
If in a SCU time is observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance, to be infinitely
slow at the rim of the IH of any observer or observing particle, then the universe of any
observer or observing particle always contains its own beginning without this meaning
that the universe has a beginning as a whole a beginning which shouldn’t, as in BBC,
be thought of as having been completed in the past as there is no such thing in a SCU.
Since unlike in CM, GR and BBC, in a SCU there is no single, unique reality at the origin
of our observations, it makes no sense to speak about the past, the present and the
future: of the universe: in a SCU we must specify the observer or observing particle
when speaking not about the universe but of the universe they observe which is
different to different observers / observing particles, all of whom / which are equally
right about what they observe.
If the universes of two observers coincide, overlap less as their distance is greater, less
definite so what is and happens at one place is less related to what is and happens at
the other, then they observe events at the other to proceed at a slower pace as they
are farther apart, time pass at a slower pace as the part of one observer or observing
particle in the energy involved in an event or process at the other is smaller.
It is the fact that the energy particles observe, cause each other to have depends on
their distance and its rate of change combined with the fact that their communication
is instant which interrelates energy, space and time, which turns what in the absence
of energy would be an abstract space where it is the same time everywhere, where all
points are physically identical so it cannot be understood even in principle why
particles are where they are into a spacetime where two points only can be said to be
spatially separated if the observed pace of clocks and length of measuring rods varies
from one point, one distance to the next, which instantconnects all points where
particles can be at equilibrium which answers t’ Hooft’s question ‘how these points
are related to form the known space and time.’
AS TO THE question whether if the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime and
clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant, this nevertheless
implies some kind of expansion. If the universe only can be said to expand if it expands
in time so going back in time it would have a beginning it by definition cannot have,
then it cannot expand, as a whole, in time, especially if there is no universewide now.
1 If its energy density was infinite, its size infinitesimal at the big bang, then it remains infinite(simal) no
matter how much space expands, whereas if it had a (de)finite value, this begs the question who or what
determined its value the value of which then cannot be understood even in principle.
75
If according to the same definition the universe only exists as seen from within so
cannot have particular properties, be in any single state as a whole, then we cannot
even speak about the universe let alone ask whether it expands. We only can describe
the universe if we specify the observing particle and follow its evolution from a zero to
a nonzero energy, to everhigher energies. If going back in time its own energy, of the
objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes decreases
so all spacetime positions become more identical, less defined, and in forward time
direction its energy of the objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of
which it contributes increases, then spacetime becomes more defined to the particle
as time passes which is not the same as saying that space expands in time.
If it observes time to pass at a slower pace at larger distances, to pass an infinitesimal
pace at the rim of its interaction horizon, then galaxies cannot accelerate away from it
and disappear beyond its observation horizon.
If two identical particles at rest relative to each other would have identical clocks, then
in a SCU they would see the clock of the other particle run at a slower pace than their
own clock as they are farther apart. The question, then, is whether see the clock of the
other particle run farther behind as they look longer at each other’s clock while staying
at rest relative to each other. If so, then they would see the pace of clock of the other
particle slow down in time so they would move apart, space expand in time. If this is
impossible, if we cannot, as in BBC, think of space and time as unrelated quantities if
time cannot pass at the same pace at all distances then they cannot observe the pace
of the clock of the other particle slow down as time passes.
If they would, then there would be no loss of information: if we would film a distant,
redshifted star and play the film back at such accelerated pace that it looks no longer
redshifted, then it would seem that we can recover, reconstruct all information the
light of the star contained as it was emitted. ‘Seem,’ since if when particles exchange
energy, information in a longer wavelength as they are farther apart and a longer
wavelength is a less definite wavelength, then the information they exchange is less
definite, less informative, of a poorer quality, such reconstruction of information by
accelerating the pace at which a film is played is impossible.
In other words, while we can artificially undo the redshift of the light of a galaxy; that
doesn’t mean that we can recover the information its light supposedly had at its
emission as we can in BBC because in a universe where the communication between
particles is instant that information just wasn’t, isn’t present in the light at its emission.
The farther apart two particles are, the less their universes coincide, overlap, the less
they have in common, the less the information one particle contains in its properties,
position and motion is accessible to observation or the less relevant that information is
to the other particle, the less its exact position and motion matters, energetically to the
observing particle, the less related their properties and behavior are, the less it makes
sense to say that time passes at the same pace at both particles.
If they observe events at the other particle proceed at a slower pace as they are farther
apart which they are as the part of one particle in the energy involved in an event or
process at the other is smaller they observe each other to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of
their evolution; that doesn’t, as in BBC, mean that one particle observes the other as it
was, of itself, at an earlier moment in cosmic time, in a more distant past, in the past.
The question, then, is whether, if the energy of a particle is the sum, the superposition
of all wavelengths it exchanges energy in with particles at all distances, we can say that
it has different energies, that it is in different evolutionary phases simultaneously and
is observed to have a lower energy, to be in an ‘earlier’ phase as seen from a larger
76
distance, the same goes for the galaxy they form: if the galaxy similarly can be said to
be in many evolutionary phases simultaneously, that the phase it actually is observed
to be in depends on things like the distance it is observed from.
This doesn’t mean that it at all times is in all possible phases simultaneously, of itself,
so to say, that it are objective states which exist independent of their observation: as
the observing particle contributes to and owes part of its energy to the galaxy, it is part
of what makes the galaxy what it is and takes part in its evolution so the phase it is
observed to be in doesn’t causally precede how it is observed to be: whereas in a BBU
we can imagine inspecting it from outside the universe; in a SCU the galaxy only exists
to the particles to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes.
The point is that ‘simultaneous’ in a SCU doesn’t refer to the same moment in cosmic
time but to the fact that all observers everywhere are equally right about the time of
an event or state of an object they observe, in the evolution of which they participate,
the properties and state of which they affect and are affected by.
However this may be, unlike in a BBU where, going back in time the energy density of
the universe become infinite, where its energy content doesn’t vanish with the space it
is contained in; in a in a SCU spacetime becomes less defined, all positions become
more identical physically as the energy of particles, of the objects they form decreases,
so here energy vanishes together with spacetime, with space and time.
This means that while clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a slower pace as they are
more distant, their pace ought to remain constant as long as they stay at rest relative
to the observer.
IF IN A SCU a particle has no infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary which separates its
rest energy from its gravitational field and as seen from outside its field, time passes at
a slower pace and rods look shorter nearer to its center, then space seems to be more
viscous frozen in time nearer to its center, a length ‘contraction’ aka time dilation
which has the effect of opposing, of slowing down in time the penetration of a test
particle in its field, giving it the tangibility which, together with its inertia, its opposition
to a change of its state of motion, we associate with a solid object an opposition we
can as well explain as a consequence of the uncertainty principle according to which it
takes energy to decrease the (indefiniteness in the) distance between the observed
and observing particle and increase their energy as a result of which they can near
each other only as far as the environment is willing to supply that energy.
Richard Feynman: 1
So we now understand why we do not fall through the floor. As we walk, our shoes with
their masses of atoms push against the floor with its mass of atoms. In order to squash the
atoms closer together, the electrons would be confined to a smaller space and, by the
uncertainty principle, their momenta would have to be higher on the average, and that
means high energy; the resistance to atomic compression is a quantummechanical effect
and not a classical effect. Classically, we would expect that if we were to draw all the
electrons and protons closer together, the energy would be reduced still further, and the
best arrangement of positive and negative charges in classical physics is all on top of each
other.
While we can say that it is the increasing uncertainty in the electron momenta of the
floor, corresponding to a higher (kinetic) energy which keeps the electrons away from
the atomic nuclei; if that energy has to be supplied by the environment then we can as
well say that is the environment among which our weight which determines how
1 Richard Feynman Lectures on physics Vol III C 24: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_02.html
77
close and how long electrons can stay near the atomic nuclei, which determines the
effective magnitude of their electric charge which prevents us to fall through the floor.
It is not insignificant that the above quote tacitly assumes that the electron and proton
attract even if there wouldn’t be an equally strong counterforce to oppose it, as if they
have an autonomous existence, as if their charge only is the cause of forces between
them and it is some incomprehensible quirk of nature itself the uncertainty principle
why they keep apart despite their electric attraction.
A physical entity does not do what it does because it is what it is, but is what it is because it does
what it does. Max Jammer 1
7
The origin of particle species / the unification of forcesAS TRADITIONALLY particle properties are assumed to be intrinsic quantities, only the
cause of forces, the different kinds of charge associated with the different interactions,
forces of nature came to be thought of as qualitatively different, mutually independent
quantities. As a result, the quest for how the different forces might be unified focuses
on their relative strength, on the energy at which they become equally strong as the
different forces have a different distance dependence which, however, only means
that they then are equally strong, not that they then are unified, i.e., are shown to be
different expressions of a single quantity. If the different kinds of charge would only be
the cause of forces, then it would be impossible even in principle to comprehend their
origin: they only can be unified in a universe where particle properties are cause and
effect of interactions, where any kind of charge contributes to and is a manifestation of
their energy. If the energy of particles in a SCU is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, then so
is any kind charge, meaning that its sign (or color) and magnitude varies within every
cycle of their oscillation, their energy exchange: the higher the frequency their energy
sign alternates at, the greater the effective magnitude is of any kind of charge.
Unlike in a BBU where the properties of the elementary particles created at the big
bang predetermine the properties of the elements, they eventually form, of the stars
and galaxies they contract to; if the properties of subatomic particles in a SCU cannot
causally precede those of the atomic nuclei and atoms, then they must evolve together
with the atomic nuclei and atoms, with the stars and galaxies they form.
If when the particles which are in the process of evolving to higher energies as they
contract at places temporarily form all possible spatial configurations, depending on
their density, on the temperature and pressure of the particle clusters they contract to,
then it is conceivable that some of those resemble the actual spatial distribution and
behavior of elementary particles in atomic nuclei, in atoms. It would then be gravity,
the tendency of energy to increase which, as discussed in § 2, in favoring higher above
lower energy configurations selects which particle configurations survive, which selects
the different properties and species of subatomic particles which enable them to form
stable atoms, what properties atoms, stars and galaxies are going to have.
If the different forces, kinds of charge of elementary particles are associated with the
different, independent, orthogonal ways they can move relative to each other in some
1 The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (1974) Max Jammer P 54
78
configuration but the energy involved in one interaction, associated with one kind of
charge, powers and is powered by all other interactions a particle is simultaneously
involved in, then what in the classical, causal view seem to be qualitatively different,
unrelated kinds of charge are the different expressions of a single quantity, of the
energy of a particle. As the extent to which its energy is expressed in interactions in
different directions the frequency it exchanges energy at with the other particles of
the configuration it is part of depends on its distance and motion relative to these
particles, it can adjust the properties they observe it to have, the relative magnitude of
what seem to be qualitatively different kinds of charge by adjusting its distance and
motion1 (including angular momentum) relative to the other particles.
As any of the particles of the configuration simultaneously exchanges energy with all of
the other particles (and, to a lesser extent, with particles of neighboring configurations)
but its observed frequency also depends on the rest energy, distance and motion of
the observing particle, they only can evolve to different particle species by
simultaneously adjusting any of the independent factors affecting the frequencies they
exchange energy at with the other particles, the effective magnitudes of the different
kinds of charge they observe, cause each other to have if they always move in such
manner that as seen from their own rest frame forces are equal from all directions. +
Such simultaneous balancing act of all involved particles, their evolution to different
particle species of course only is possible if their communication is instant as otherwise
there would be no feedback, no adjustment to ensure that Newton’s 3rd law is obeyed
and the energy of the configuration, of atoms, atomic nuclei changes in discrete steps,
if the energy of its particles is quantified, if its magnitude and sign varies in a wavelike
manner within every cycle of their energy exchange as otherwise no stable equilibrium
between particles, no evolution, no stable matter would be possible.
If the definition of what a universe is means that any kind of charge of particles is cause
and effect of their interactions, then this not only opens an unexplored path to the
unification of the different forces; if the energy involved in one interaction, due to one
charge, one force, powers and is powered by all other interactions due to other kinds
of charge a particle simultaneously participates in and any kind charge contributes to,
is an expression of the energy of particles and energy is a source of gravity, acts like
mass, then any kind of charge contributes to the mass of particles.
As the mass of particles in a selfcreating universe cannot causally precede gravity, then
this suggests that their rest mass isn’t a property they have independent of, in addition
to other kinds of charge that an electron, say, has two separate, unrelated batteries,
one filled with electric and the other with gravitational charge.
If the known particle species indeed evolve together, then the rest energy and electric
charge electrons would contain contributions of the color charge, of the binding energy
between quarks in and between baryons in atomic nuclei and vice versa.
If the particles which are in the process of evolving to elementary particles as they are
contracting at places to what eventually will become stars and galaxies temporarily
form configurations and it is gravity which, in prolonging in time more compact, higher
energy above less compact, lower energy configurations, selects those configurations
particles can perpetuate and the properties associated with that particular behavior,
then they may evolve more or less gradually to elementary particles as opposed to
1 Though in QM one only can speak about the probability of finding a particle somewhere, not of its
trajectory; if the evolution of its wavefunction in time determines the most probable positions it can be
found at some particular time, then we might call the collection of those position its ‘trajectory’ even
though it doesn’t actually visit those positions in a sequence we can associate with a definite trajectory.
79
BBC where the properties of stars and galaxies are preordained in the properties of the
particles which pop up readymade from one moment to the next at the big bang.
If the behavior of what eventually are to become the particles of the different species
in the course of time increasingly resembles that of quarks in baryons, in atomic nuclei,
of electrons in atoms, then this would agree with the proposition that the vacuum
energy of empty space consists of the virtual particles of the gravitational field of stars
and galaxies, of particles the properties of which are less defined as their energy is
lower, as their position is less definite, farter from the source of the gravitational field
in which case it is conceivable that the virtual particles of the field may become real
particles as they become part of stars, a process the pace or duration of which may
depend on the evolutionary phase the galaxy is in.
If according to the UP the energy of particles which are in the process of evolving to
elementary particles increases as they are contracting to stars, as the uncertainty in
their position, in their distance decreases, then they increasingly limit each other’s
freedom of behavior, confining each other to less indefinite distances and ‘trajectories’
it takes more energy to deviate from. The properties they observe, cause each other to
have then become less indefinite in the course of time in the sense that they force
each other more strongly to keep certain, less indefinite distances and follow more
precisely defined ‘trajectories’ or momenta in sharper defined directions: that as their
rest energy increases, it takes more energy to deviate from their behavior in atomic
nuclei, that the indefiniteness in the magnitude of any kind of charge decreases, that
their magnitude increases, that it becomes less subject to changes, as if it are fixed,
interaction independent quantities, only the cause of forces.
So instead of, as in BBC, saying that the properties of atoms are preordained in the
DNA, the properties its particles were created with at the big bang; in a SCU it is their
behavior in atoms, in stars and galaxies which perpetuates, preserves their properties.
If it matters energetically to a particle, if it can distinguish whether another particle
nears or recedes from it, moves up or down or from the left to the right or the other
way around through its ‘sky’ relative to the background of all particles within its IH
moving and spinning in this or that direction and all these different, independent ways
they can move relative to each other affect the frequency they in some configuration
exchange energy at in a specific manner, then it can be seen that the different,
associated forces of nature have a different distance (and motion) dependence, as if
they are powered by qualitatively different, mutually unrelated kinds of charge.
If a particle moves in different ways with respect to the each of the different particles
of the configuration it is part of (and to particles of neighboring configurations), if what
to one particle looks like a vertical or receding motion or up spin to another particle
looks like a nearing or horizontal motion or down spin, then one interaction, one force
may transform into another by some symmetry operation, by a rotation, say, especially
if the energy involved in one interaction, associated with one kind of charge powers
and is powered by all other interactions it simultaneously participates in.
The greater the distance and / or the lower the rest energy is of the particles in some
configuration, the less definite they observe each other’s location and motion to be,
the behavior from which we infer their properties, the less definite they observe each
other’s properties to be, the less defined the configuration is, the vaguer its form and
size is, the less definite, the greater and fuzzier the diameter is of the tube one might
imagine their ‘trajectories’ to envelop or the fuzzier the areas is where the probability
to find a particle is great or the more equal the probability is to find it anywhere in a
larger the area the more the particles may seem to be part of different configurations
80
simultaneously or the more these configurations coincide, overlap, resemble each
other, the less they differ energetically, the less defined their properties are in such
configuration(s), the weaker they interact, the less forcefully they impose each other
some precise, specific behavior. The shorter their distance and / or the smaller their
distance, the more they limit each other’s freedom of behavior, the shorter, the less
indefinite the wavelength is in which they exchange energy, the less indefinite their
relative position and motion is, the higher their energy is, the more energy it takes to
deviate from those positions and ‘trajectories,’ the greater their inertia is.
If the different forces, kinds of charge indeed arise from the different, independent
ways they can move relative to each other, each of which affects their exchange
frequency in a different manner and all interactions each of the particles of the
configuration participates in contributes to their energy within that configuration, then
what seem to be different forces, powered by qualitatively different, independent
kinds of charge are balanced unified? in their behavior within that configuration.
AS IN BBC all elementary particles popped up readymade from one moment to the
next at or shortly into the big bang, their properties, any kind of charge measured off,
finetuned to the last of an infinite series of decimals, all objects they ever will form
and all events ever to happen were preordained at the big bang, meaning that the
universe has been created by some creator outside of it: that it is a windup toy which
once assembled and wound up only can unwind in a completely predictable fashion,
that all information the universe is ever to contain, it already contains at the big bang.
By contrast, as in a SCU particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions so
don’t causally precede, predetermine the properties of the objects they from, here
elementary particles the building bricks of the edifices they form only acquire
properties and are baked in the building process, their properties selected in a trial and
error process as the buildings atomic nuclei, atoms, stars and galaxies arise, following
the rule that what survives … survives, for as long as it manages to survive.
If in a SCU clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant and we
were to associate a larger distance, a slower pace of time with an earlier time, then the
universe of any observer or observing particle would contain its own beginning which
then can be localized at the rim of its interaction horizon. However, as there is no
universewide now in a SCU, we don’t, as in a BBU, see a distant galaxy as it was, of
itself, in a distant past, in the past, but as it is to us as we look at it, in what only to us is
the present, it is not a beginning which can be thought of as an event which has been
completed in the past. As the universe of an observing particle changes as it evolves
itself to higher energies from an infinitesimal energy to an elementary particle which
eventually ends up in the black hole at the center of its galaxy the world it observes
changes as it evolves itself and with it the ‘beginning’ of its universe. The more distant
a galaxy is, the slower the particle observes processes to proceed in the galaxy, the
lower the energy it observes the galaxy to have, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it
observes the galaxy to be in; the lower its own energy is, the lower it observes the
energy of objects within its IH to be, the less it contributes to their energy, the ‘earlier’
the phase it observes its universe to be in and ‘earlier’ the phase it is in itself quote
marks as terms like earlier and later in a SCU are relative, local notions. This isn’t to say
that the galaxy always is in all possible evolutionary phases simultaneously and that it
is the energy of the observing particle and its distance to the galaxy which determines
the phase it observes the galaxy to be in: the point is that the observing particle itself
contributes to the energy of the galaxy and vice versa, that the galaxy only exists to all
81
objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes and not, as
in a BBU, to an imaginary observer outside the universe.
If particles keep creating and uncreating each other in every cycle of their oscillation of
their instant energy exchange with particles at all distances they observe to be in all
possible phases of their evolution, including particles of stars, then this constitutes a
kind of feedback from stars and galaxies to instruct, in retrospect, as it were, particles
how to evolve, what properties to adopt to be able to form stars and galaxies.
If the virtual particles of the vacuum are the volatile interference products of the real
particles of stars, then they may evolve more or less gradually to elementary particles,
a process facilitated, guided by the information they, as interference products of real
particles, carry about what properties to adopt to become part of stars if they indeed
are the quanta of the gravitational field of stars and galaxies.
If when the energy of particles varies within every cycle of their oscillation, and with it
the indefiniteness in their behavior, if when they keep creating and uncreating each
other in every cycle of their energy exchange, they in a general sense keep repeating
their evolution to elementary particles, then this enables them to adjust their behavior,
(from which we infer) their properties the next time they reappear to changing
circumstances, circumstances they cause and are the product of: to evolve and survive.
As the energy of a particle or galaxy is the superposition of all wavelengths it exchanges
energy in with objects at all distances so contains lowenergy, long wavelength
contributions from distant objects it observes to be in an ‘early’ phase evolution while
it is itself observed to have a low energy, to be in an ‘early’ phase of its evolution by a
distant observer, its state can be thought of as a superposition of phases, all of which
keep contributing to the relatively high energy it is observed to have by a nearby
observer, who observes it to be in a much ‘later’ phase of its evolution.
If we always measure elementary particles to have the same properties then that is
because a measurement is a standardized interaction if we always prod them in the
same way, they are bound to react in the same way rather than that it are privately
owned, interaction independent, fixed quantities as they wouldn’t then be able to gain
anything by acting in some particular manner, by contracting instead of dispersing, say,
so it wouldn’t even be properties. To exist as stable particles, to have a welldefined
identity, they must acquire a backbone which enables them to oppose a change in their
properties yet allow them to interact, to adjust their behavior to circumstances, to
process a change in their environment in a change of the configuration they are part of,
like in the jump of an atom between different excited states.
While from the point of view of its particles it doesn’t matter whether an adjustment of
their distance and motion in the atom only affects the expression of any kind of charge
as a force or whether it also affects the magnitude of the charge powering it; if, as in
the classical, causal view, it only is the expression of a charge which varies with their
distance and relative motion, not of the amount of charge they have, of themselves, so
to say, then particles would go sit and stay on top of each other once their attraction
due to one kind of charge at some distance overcomes their repulsion due to another
kind of charge and no stable equilibrium would be possible, no stable matter.
That is, if a force can said to be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, since a force
cannot be unequal to the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, not to mention that
they anyhow cannot stay on top of each other as the uncertainty in their position then
would be zero, corresponding to an infinite energy. If a shorter, less indefinite distance
implies a higher energy and this energy has to be supplied by the environment, then it
is the environment all particles to which they owe their energy and to the energy of
which they contribute which determines at what distance they can be at equilibrium,
82
which determines the effective magnitudes of the charges powering (and powered by)
both ‘opposite’ forces at that distance.
Though the fact that the color force between quarks in baryons remains constant
within a certain range of distances seems to contradict the UP according to which the
energy of particles increases as (the uncertainty in) their distance decreases; the above
sketched evolution of elementary particles is far too simplistic to do justice to what
actually happens according to quantum chromodynamics; if the definition of what a
universe is forces us to conclude that particle properties are cause and effect of their
interactions, then this also should hold for quarks though one can ask whether they
can be considered to be particles as they don’t have an autonomous existence but only
appear in triplets (baryons) and duplets (mesons).
It is because any kind of charge of particles is cause and effect of forces between them
why the effective magnitude of what classically are thought of as fixed, qualitatively
different, unrelated kinds of charge powering (and powered by) opposite forces can
vary with their distance and motion in atoms in such manner that both forces change
equally and simultaneously as the energy of the particles changes and can they remain
at equilibrium at different, discrete distances, corresponding to discrete energies and
form stable matter. If when the atom jumps to a higher energy, the energy of its
particles changes, the expression of any kind of charge, their behavior, then we can say
that they adjust their properties to circumstances to ensure their own continued
existence: it only are properties if they change back again as the atom deexcites.
Only if the communication between particles is instant can they adjust and coordinate
their distance and motion in some configuration, an instant feedback which enables
them to maintain any equilibrium they achieve, to preserve the properties associated
with that behavior, that equilibrium properties they may preserve even outside the
configurations they evolved in, as ‘free’ electrons and baryons quote marks on ‘free’
as they must keep exchanging energy with the particles they evolved with to preserve
their, each other’s properties. This only works if their energy is a dynamic quantity, if
its magnitude and sign of their energy varies in a wavelike manner in space and time
and with it the indefiniteness in the position from which they act upon each other,
exchange energy, in the extent to which any charge is expressed, in its effective
magnitude, in the strength of the force it is the source and product of.
THE BEAUTY OF such trial and error evolution is that no calculation, no finetuning is
needed no interference from outside the universe as to what particle species and
properties and associated laws and constants of nature may result in a viable universe.
It is gravity which by prolonging in time more compact, higher above less compact,
lowerenergy configurations, selects which from all possible, temporary configurations
survives, which, depending on circumstances, determines what particle properties and
species survive, circumstances the particles create and are the product of as opposed
to a big bang universe where a beginning implies an intent to create it, a preconceived
plan, a creator to decide when to start calculating what particles, constants and laws of
nature may produce a selfsustaining universe1 prior to its actual creation, a universe
the properties and evolution development of which could as well have been different:
where time passes even before there is a universe even though nothing much may
happen, last, until its actual creation, where anything which is ever to happen as and
when it does is preordained at its creation.
1 Well, if the expansion of the big bang universe indeed started to accelerate some 4 billion years ago,
then this suggests an intervention from the outside at that time.
83
A selfcreating universe is itself a kind of calculator the components of which take form,
materialize as the trial and error calculation aka evolution proceeds simultaneously
everywhere, a calculation where all particles in all possible phases of their evolution
participate in and are the product of, an evolution which cannot but obey the Nix law
which defines the universe as a perpetuum mobile which costs as much as it yields:
nothing which is to say, a universe which has no external reality but only exists as seen
from within, where, as particles are cause and effect of their interactions, they only
exist to each other and not to an imaginary observer outside the universe.
It is gravity which, in imposing a direction on events, acts like the ratchet which in a
clock prevents its hands to turn counterclockwise, which prevents processes to reverse
which enables particles to acquire properties and evolve, gradually or in fits and starts,
to everhigher energies, an evolution, a change we experience as the passing of time.
That is, as the universe only exists as seen from within and, as according to the UP the
energy of a particle cannot be and remain zero, particles keep crossing the threshold
between nonexistence and existence, between a zero and a nonzero energy, there
‘always’ will be particles which observe the objects within their interaction horizon,
within their universe to have a lower energy, to be in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase as
their own energy is lower, as they are in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase themselves, we
cannot even say that a selfcreating universe evolves, that it has a beginning as a whole.
We might say that universe starts to exist to every particle as and when it manages to
cross the threshold between nonexistence and existence, between a zero and nonzero
energy which the uncertainty principle says it eventually will, an existence which is
preserved by gravity, by the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself.
However simplistic and speculative the above sketched mechanics of selfcreation is
whereby particles acquire properties, evolve to elementary particles and however
many questions it leaves unanswered and however overwhelming the observational
evidence for a big bang seems to be; it beats a cosmology which not only doesn’t offer
any idea about the origin of the energy created at the big bang, how the elementary
particles knew what properties to pop up with or why, if it can create itself so always
could, it can have a beginning, but also omits to explain how the universe knew at what
values to set the constants of nature to enable it to keep existing.
Clearly, if when particles only can evolve to elementary particles if their properties are
cause and effect of their interactions, if their communication is instant, only those
properties and species survive which manage to survive, then the associated constants
of nature automatically find the values which enable them their universe to keep
existing, there is no need for the artificial finetuning of constants of nature a big bang
universe requires, a finetuning which implies an intent to create it, that it has been
created by some outside intervention.
While one might say that we accidentally live in a universe which allows the evolution,
the existence of observers who are able to be amazed about their own existence, of
the world they find themselves in and that different initial conditions result in different
universes with different particle properties, species, laws and constants of nature; if
the universe by definition cannot have particular properties nor be in any particular
state as a whole, as it has no external reality, then it makes no sense to say that there
exist different universes. Only a universe which has been created by some outside
intervention has a beginning, an external reality, have certain properties and be in
some particular state as a whole: live in a space and time realm not of its own making.
84
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself.
The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity.
At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. Stephen Hawking
8
The second law of thermodynamicsTHE OBSERVATION THAT the pigment particles in a drop of ink disperse in water, that
local temperature or density differences in a gas in a container decrease in the course
of time that an inequilibrium in a closed system tends to turn into an equilibrium state
(or that a state of inequilibrium can be defined as a state which tends to change in
time) led to the formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics according to which the
entropy of a perfectly isolated, closed system only can increase in time implying that
the entropy of a universe which has a beginning is minimal at the start. Entropy is a
measure of the information needed to specify the state of a system, of the disorder,
indefiniteness or randomness of the system, its lack of information: the more uniform
the distribution of the ink particles in a glass of water is, of gas molecules in a container
or the smaller differences in temperature or pressure are, the higher its entropy is.
… entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a
macroscopic state. Because thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater
number of microscopic configurations than any nonequilibrium state, it has the maximum
entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees
that the system will evolve towards such thermodynamic equilibrium.1
Entropy can be thought of as a measure of microscopic disorder; thus the Second Law
implies that time is asymmetrical with respect to the amount of order in an isolated
system: as a system advances through time, it becomes more statistically disordered.
This asymmetry can be used empirically to distinguish between future and past.2
Let’s first note that only a selfcreating universe is a perfectly closed, isolated system as
it has no external reality since by definition there is nothing outside of it so nothing can
leave or enter it. However, if according to the same definition it cannot have particular
properties nor be in some particular state, then it obviously cannot have a definite
temperature or entropy the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to a SCU.
As the universe only can have some particular property and be in some particular state
as a whole if there is something outside of it relative to which it can be said to exist, to
have those properties and be in such state, if its properties and state can be quantified
from the outside if energy, space, time, temperature and entropy and their units are
defined even outside of it a big bang universe cannot be considered to be perfectly
closed, isolated so the second law also doesn’t apply to this universe.
As particles in a BBU have an autonomous existence so would keep existing even if we
could prevent them to interact, we can put gas molecules in a container and can isolate
them from world outside of it and ask what entropy the system has and how it changes
in time if not for the problem that if they are completely isolated so no interaction, no
communication is possible between the gas molecules in the container and the world
outside of it, they wouldn’t exist, have no physical reality to an observer outside of it.
As they wouldn’t then be part of the universe of the observer, it wouldn’t make any
sense to ask from the outside the system what the entropy inside of it is, whether and
how it changes in time or even say that time passes inside of it. While the gas in the
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy (2232019)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time (2232019)
85
container can be isolated pretty good thermally; as they cannot be prevented to
interacting gravitationally with objects outside of it, no container is a perfectly isolated,
system so the second law cannot be tested in practice which is not to say that ink will
not disperse over water or temperature or pressure differences in gas not disappear.
As particles in a SCU have to keep exchanging energy to keep existing, to express and
preserve their, each other’s properties, they would cease to exist if we could cut off
their communication with it the world outside the container. If we only can ask what
the entropy inside of it is if they keep interacting with, existing to the outside world so
a different entropy inside of would make the world outside of it slightly different and
vice versa, then the entropy of a system only can change if it is not perfectly isolated
and an entropy increase at one place may be accompanied by a decrease elsewhere.
IF THE SECOND law is interpreted to say that the entropy of the big bang universe of
its initial conditions was minimal at the start, the big bang itself is thought of as a state
of inequilibrium if we define the entropy of a system to be lower as it is farther out of
equilibrium but a state only can be unstable, out of equilibrium, be a state of low
entropy if there are physical laws operational by means of which the initial state can,
must convert into a state which is less far out of equilibrium, then this begs the
question where the information these initial conditions, laws and constants of nature
represent comes from, who or what determined, created its initial conditions and
installed the laws prescribing how one state is to transform into the next, who or what
determined the amount of energy to be created, how it could know when to decay into
the particles of the standard model, how they knew what properties to pop up with.
If an initial state is specified by the physical laws which prescribe how it is to change, to
transform into another state which is less far out of equilibrium, if an initial state only
becomes defined, unstable as soon as the laws become operational which force it to
transform into a state which is less far out of equilibrium if these laws determine the
nature of all consecutive states, each next state closer to the final (?) equilibrium state
of maximal entropy but a state only can convert into the next if the information as
contained in the later state already is present in the previous state (like the chicken is
present, preordained in the egg) so all later consecutive states already are present,
predetermined in its initial state which then contains, in potentia, all information the
universe ever is going to contain then how can a transition from one state to the next
change the entropy, the information content of the universe if it already is present in
potentia in its initial state? Moreover, if a state only can be out of equilibrium when
such laws are operational, then shouldn’t they prevent the creation of any initial state
of inequilibrium of a big bang universe in the first place?
While this doesn’t mean that pigment particles in a glass of water collect just as easily
to a drop of ink as they dispersed or an egg becomes as easily unbroken as it breaks;
the evolution of the chicken does constitute an entropy decrease as it unbroke the egg.
In a universe where particles, particle properties evolve together with the objects they
form, where its building bricks are shaped and baked in the building process, there are
no initial conditions, no initial, minimum entropy which only can increase: if there is no
universewide now, then there obviously cannot be a universewide entropy.
While going back in time a BBU ends/begins in a state of infinite energy density; as in a
SCU particles evolve to higher energies as they contract to stars and galaxies and
create spacetime as they do; going back in time their energy would decrease as they
separate so spacetime would become increasingly less defined, all positions become
more identical physically until all energy vanishes and with it the universe, space and
86
time would, as it cannot be in any single, particular state as a whole, as it doesn’t live
in a time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time inside of it.
If we only can describe the universe from within and were to speak about its local
entropy, then it would be higher contain less information at larger distances, where
we observe objects to be in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase, where, as their observed
energy is lower, the position and motion of particles, their properties are less defined,
an entropy which, like the energy an object is observed to have also depends on the
observer or observing particle, on its own energy, on the evolutionary phase it is in
itself, meaning that it is a relative, observerdependent quantity.
Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it
finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. Terry Pratchett1
9
The speed of lightTHE FACT THAT light always and everywhere travels at 299,792,458 meter per second
is quite remarkable for how can it know at what speed it must move and maintain that
exact velocity? Does it have some kind of GPS or cruise control on board?
If the UP may be interpreted to say that energy is a stronger source of forces (including
gravity) as the position it acts from is less indefinite, as the area in which more of its
energy can be localized is smaller (as measured outside the gravitational field it is the
source of), and the position of a particle on its path is less definite as it moves faster, as
it acts shorter, weaker from each point of its path and at the speed of light its position
is completely indefinite, then a particle moving at the speed of light is massless.
If a particle would carry a clock with it and it is observed to run at a slower pace by an
observer along its path as it moves faster, then that has the same effect as the particle
shrinking in its direction of motion as it increases the gradient of its gravitational field,
a field which, as seen from its mass center, accelerates the frequency it exchanges
energy at with objects in both directions of its path, so according to its own, slowed
down clock, it preserves its rest energy. If so, if by moving at a higher velocity all points
of its path become more identical to the particle as its interactions with the objects in
the environment it travels through are weaker as it moves faster, as its position on its
path becomes less definite, then general relativity can be summarized by saying that it
has to move faster in some direction as it observes the pace of clocks in that direction
to be slower and more equal at all distances. If we define the mass of a particle as
greater as its energy is a stronger source of gravity which it is as the position it acts
from is less indefinite (or we define its position to be less indefinite as it takes more
energy to change its state of motion), and it is massless as its position is completely
indefinite, if it moves at the speed of light if its mass is greater as the position of its
mass center is less indefinite and the observed (in)definiteness in its position also
depends on the mass of the observing particle, it distance and motion relative to the
observed so is a relative so it is not something a particle can privately own, then it is
not a kind of charge it has in addition to, independent from other kinds of charge.
General relativity only can be unified with quantum mechanics if we abandon the idea
of the rest energy of particles as an absolute, objective privately owned quantity, as
being only the cause of forces, as something which, but for practical difficulties, can be
measured even from outside the universe.
1 Reaper Man (1991) Terry Pratchett p. 321 (ISBN 0575049790)
87
If, as in the present, classical view, we conceive of the speed of light as the velocity at
which light moves through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels, then
it would be that velocity at which a particle cannot express its properties or cargo in
interactions with the objects in the environment it travels through, why a massless
particle moves at the speed of light, why a particle only can have, exhibit mass if it can
be localized, if it has a position from which its energy any charge which contributes to,
which is an expression of its energy can act as a source of forces, including gravity.
As the environment doesn’t exist to a particle ‘moving’ at the speed of light, it can be
seen why according to relativity theory, from the point of view of the particle there is
no distance in space nor time between the points it has that speed, why according to a
photon its transmission between two particles is instant which it ought to be if their
properties, their energy is cause and effect of their interactions. As discussed above,
this only is at odds with the fact that we measure its transmission to take a time
proportional to the distance it covers in a universe where it is the same time, where
time passes at the same pace everywhere, not in a universe which, as it only exists as
seen from within so contains, produces all time inside of it, time is observed to pass at
a slower pace at larger distances.
While we can predict where and when we can intercept a photon if we know where
and when it was emitted in what direction; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that it
moves as a classical object at a finite velocity through space, in time.
If a particle only can be said to exist if it has energy, if it has a position from which its
energy can act as a source of forces, if it interacts with the objects in the environment,
then there are no massless particles, however useful they are in models to quantify
interactions between particles, as in quantum electrodynamics (QED) where photons
interact with electrically charged particles on their path or quantum chromodynamics
(QCD) where massless gluons interact with quarks as well as with other gluons.
The interpretation of what happens in a universe where particle properties are cause
and effect of their interactions where their communication is instant, where there is
no universewide now differs fundamentally from a universe which lives in a time
realm not of its own making, where, as particle properties only are the cause of forces,
the speed of light had to be conceived of as a finite velocity, of light as something
which moves through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels.
While in Minkowski space where all points are physically identical, where time passes
at the same pace everywhere the motion of particles can be specified relative to an
arbitrarily chosen coordinate system1 without having to attribute them properties and
require them to interact; in a real, physical spacetime we only can speak about their
relative velocity if they interact, if their energy is cause and effect of their interactions
so it matters, energetically to one particle where the other is and how it moves.
IF IN A misty field at night a laser is switched on and we observe from a large distance
the motion of the front of the light beam as it is reflected by the mist droplets in our
direction, then we see the beam front travel at a constant velocity away from the laser
though we may have to film it with a fast camera and play the film back at a reduced
speed to be able to see the beam front move as the speed of light is so high.
While this observation can be explained by assuming that time passes at the same pace
everywhere and that light moves at a finite speed through space, in time, the universe
growing older as it travels; we see the same if the light is instantly everywhere on its
1 A space where the length of the meter is defined by saying that it takes light 1/299,792,458 second to
travel.
88
path and, via the droplets, at us as soon as the laser is switched on in a universe where
clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant as the distance
from the light source to us as measured via the detour of the mist droplets increases as
time passes so we see the beam front move.
It is the concept of cosmic time, the belief that the universe lives in a time realm not of
its own making, that it has been created by some creator so has a beginning and grows
older at the same pace everywhere, that time passes at the same pace everywhere
why we assume that we can determine what is cause of what, what precedes what in
an absolute sense why we assume that light moves through space, in time.
While the transmission of a photon between two atoms A and B in a SCU is instant;
that doesn’t mean that it happens at the same moment in cosmic time, that its
emission by A coincides in time with its absorption by B, that we may imagine to look
from outside the universe in and watch the photon jump instantly from A to B at some
particular moment in cosmic time as there is no such thing in a SCU.
As the universe by definition has no external reality so doesn’t live in a time realm not
of its own making so there is no universewide now but contains, produces al time
inside of it, the transmission of the photon isn’t instant over any space distance but
over any spacetime distance as two points only are observed to be spatially separated
if time is observed to pass at a (slightly) slower pace at the more remote point.
In a SCU there is no infinitely narrow time interval, no universewide now all objects
and observers live in, have in common: as time cannot be observed to pass at the same
pace at all distances, it doesn’t make sense to ask what in an absolute sense precedes
what, the emission of the photon by A or its absorption by B. Observers at atoms A and
B are equally right about the time of the transmission: an instant transmission only
means that we cannot think about the photon as traveling through space, in time.
Let’s imagine, in a universe where it is the same time, where time passes at the same
pace anywhere, a plane in which there are two observers A and B and a light source S.
If S is at rest and A and B move toward S at a different velocity, one would expect A and
B to measure the light S emits to move at a different speed. If they nevertheless find
the light to move at the same velocity, then that is because to a moving observer his
path shrinks and clocks along his path run at a slower pace as he moves faster.
He only can observe the speed of light to be independent from his own motion if the
ratio between the length he observes his path to have when moving and when at rest
varies in the same manner with his velocity as does the ratio between the pace of the
clocks he observes when moving and when at rest: if space and time are intrinsically
related. This they only are in a universe where, as space and time only exist as seen
from within, the pace of a clock depends on the distance it is observed from and hence
on its rate of change relative to the observer, not in a universe where time passes at
the same pace everywhere, where space and time only are superficially related.
While the speed of light obviously is a limit to the velocity an object can move at since
nothing goes faster than instantly; it shouldn’t be thought of as a velocity as a velocity
refers to something relative to which it moves so ought to be different to observers
moving at different velocities but to a property of spacetime: it is because space and
time are intrinsically related why the value of the constant of nature c has nothing to
do with the motion of the observers, why they all measure the same value no matter
their own velocity.
As the transmission of a photon between atoms A and B changes the state, the energy
of both atoms, A observes B‘s state to change at the time it emits the photon since as
89
soon as A’s energy changes, its world including B has changed, looks different to A
after the emission, while B observes A’s state change at the time it absorbs the photon,
as its own state changes due to the absorption of the photon and hence its observation
of, its interactions with the objects in its world, including A.
That is, unless we believe that B, after absorbing A’s photon sends back a message to A
to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thankyou note informing A that it can, as of
this moment the receipt of the note start to see B in its new state, with a slightly
increased energy, start to interact differently with B.
As classically the properties of (the particles of) an atom are intrinsic quantities, only
the cause of interactions, it can randomly, spontaneously emit a photon, independent
from what happens in its environment so it autonomously determines the direction of
the photon and time of emission. If the photon on detection is observed to have a
different energy, to be shifted to red or blue, then that must have been caused by the
motion of the atom relative to the observer or by a difference in the gravitational field
they sit in, the problem being that if its emission indeed is spontaneous uncaused it
cannot be explained why it was emitted when and in what direction.
If according to the photon its transmission is instant, then so is the communication
between A and B, meaning that B is as much the cause of the transmission as A so A
cannot autonomously emit a photon, independent from what is and happens in the
environment, that it isn’t a spontaneous emission after all. As a photon is its own
antiparticle, we might as well say that B emits an antiphoton which is absorbed by A.
That is, as due to the transmission of the photon the energy and momentum of A and B
changes with respect to the particles in their environment particles which, as they are
affected by the change of the state of A and B, are part of its cause and effect so take
part in its transmission, in the decision when to emit the photon in what direction we
cannot single out the culprit responsible for the photon transmission: if all these
particles contribute to or absorb some of the energy and momentum the photon
carries and their communication is instant, then the photon transmission is an event
which simultaneously happens everywhere within the interaction horizons of A and B.
It is because time in a selfcreating universe is observed to pass at a slower pace at
larger distances which creates the illusion that such change propagates through space,
in time why we came to understand the transmission of light in terms of cause and
effect and conceive of the photon as a classical object which moves at a finite velocity
through space, in cosmic time, the entire universe growing older as it travels: because
we believe that the universe has a beginning, often without realizing that this implies
that it has been created by some creator defying the definition of what a universe is.
So what in the classical view are three separate, unrelated events which happen one
after the other in cosmic time the autonomous, random emission of a photon by A, its
voyage in some random direction and its accidental absorption by B unrelated in the
sense that once emitted, there is no communication between the traveling photon and
A nor with any particle or atom it eventually is to be deflected or absorbed by; in a SCU
it is a single event which happens at once everywhere within the entire interaction
horizons of A and B not over all of space at some particular moment in cosmic time
but over all of spacetime.
While the fact that we can switch on a lamp seems to prove that light emerges from
the lamp, that its emission causally precedes its arrival elsewhere at a later time; the
lamp is just a device designed in such manner that, once supplied with energy, the
probability of a photon transmission becomes extremely close to 1. Though we can
create favorable conditions for a photon transmission to occur, build a device in which
90
this is the case when fed with energy; the lamp cannot emit a single photon without
the cooperation of the environment which is to absorb it. It is because there usually
are plenty other atoms or particles prepared to absorb the light why its emission
doesn’t seem to depend on what is and happens in the environment, as if the source is
the autonomous cause of the emission.
Like in the laser experiment, it is the distance redshift / time dilation inherent to a SCU
why we observe a time sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that the
earlier observed event is the cause of the later one, why we came to think of light as
something which moves through space, in time. However, since at the speed of light a
particle cannot express its properties in interactions so doesn’t exist, has no physical
reality to the environment it is supposed to travel through, it doesn’t even make sense
to speak about its velocity relative to the environment. If, as in the absolutistic view,
we don’t require the photon to interact with the objects relative to which it moves,
then we can only speak about its velocity if empty space comes with a regular grid
relative to which its velocity can be specified, a grid where time passes at the same
pace everywhere, if space and time exist, are defined even in the absence of energy: if
there is an ether, a medium in which it propagates. Einstein: 1
… the mechanical behavior of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends
not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of
rotation … In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as
something real, Newton objectivizes space. Since he classes his absolute space together
with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real.
Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether" … It is true that Mach
tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavoring
to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the
masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe [in] action at a distance,
he comes back … to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether … differs essentially from the ether as conceived by
Newton … Mach's ether not only conditions the behavior of inert masses, but is also
conditioned in its state by them. … Recapitulating, we may say that according to [GR]
space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to [GR] space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only
would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of
space and time (measuringrods and clocks), nor therefore any spacetime intervals in the
physical sense.
While action at a space distance is impossible in a universe where it is the same time
everywhere; in a universe which only exists as seen from within we have action at a
spacetime distance: here we don’t see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant
past, in the past, but as it is to us as we look at it in what only to us is the present.
Wolfgang Rindler 2
On balance, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that GR has realized only part of Mach’s
program. Instead of abolishing space altogether, Einstein merely made it nonabsolute;
and, ironically, instead of explaining inertial forces as gravitational, i.e., as matter pulling
on inertial “charge” in the spirit of Mach, Einstein explained gravitational forces as inertial,
i.e., as “spaceguided.” It must be said, in fairness, that today’s quantum theoreticians (as
well as many others) have little sympathy with Mach’s principle. They point out that not
1 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity (2392019)2 Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001),Wolfgang Rindler 2nd edition p 244
91
only matter is the stuff of physics, but also fields, and that the whole of spacetime is
occupied by the fields of the elementary particles. Even in the absence of matter, the
fields of the virtual particles constitutes an allpervasive background which can in no way
be eliminated. In fact, matter is only a small perturbation of it. This background, which
possesses Lorenz invariance locally, can be looked upon as a modern ether. Since it
possesses no net energy it makes no contribution to curvature, and hence it has no direct
effect in general relativity. But it does suggest the a priori existence of spacetime, which
matter merely modifies and does not create.
If according to the UP a field at any point in spacetime cannot be and remain zero, this
implies spacetime to ‘contain’ energy1 and energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity and
its quanta are source and product of their interactions, then that suggests that the
virtual particles of empty space are the temporary interference products of the real
particles / waves of stars and galaxies, the quanta of their gravitational field: that what
we call virtual particles are local variations in the strength of the field, that the fabric of
spacetime at microscopic scale alternately stretches and contracts in the sense that the
observed pace of clocks and length of rods the extent to which adjoining positions are
distinguishable, defined varies in a wavelike manner in space and time. If so, then we
cannot think of this vacuum energy as having the same density everywhere, say that
this ‘ether’ has no net energy so makes no contribution to the curvature of space, that
spacetime exists even in the absence of matter, a ‘spacetime which matter merely
modifies and does not create’ not to mention that the universe by definition cannot
have some particular property energy density as a whole, be uniformly filled with the
virtual particles if it even would make sense to speak about its density if it is energy
which turns an imaginary space into a real spacetime in the first place.
If when the energy of the particles of an atom is the sum, the superposition of many
exchange frequencies and varies within every cycle of their oscillation, the atom is in a
superposition of states with different energies, then the question is whether the atom
can emit a photon in an intermediate state, that the photon it emits has a lower energy
as the distance between the emitting and absorbing atom is greater, less definite. Or,
put differently, if when we see the atom, its particles in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase
as it is more distant, as the properties of its particles are less defined, less precisely
measured off, the atom in that state interacts, the photon it in that ‘early,’ provisional,
intermediate state emits as it deexcites, has a correspondingly lower energy.
1 Quote marks as energy and space aren’t unrelated quantities, that it is localized (and hence quantized)
energy which, in makes adjoining points physically different turns an abstract space into a real spacetime.
92
10
Feynman’s path integralJohn Wheeler 1
Back in 1940 or 1941, Feynman had come up with a new way to look at quantum
phenomena that I called ‘sumoverhistories.’ The idea, in brief, is this: In quantum
mechanics, if you to want to find out how something at point A influences something at
point B, you can get the answer by pretending that all of the ways that A might send a
signal to B happen at once; the actual effect is then a sum of all the ‘virtual’ effects from
all of the different paths. It is as if a baseball pitcher, instead of throwing a single ball
toward the batter, could launch simultaneously a thousand balls that travel a thousand
different paths through space and time on their way to the batter. Each of these
thousand balls has a ‘history’ as it flies from pitcher’s mound plate. What the batter sees
and swings at is the result of all these histories combined. A mindbending idea, to be
sure, but it’s just what happens in the quantum world.
If the pitcher and batter represent atoms A and B between which a photon the
baseball is transmitted and A would autonomously emit the photon, then the photon
should follow a single path in some random direction, not split into thousand photons
which follow simultaneously thousand different paths, including detours via Sirius.
While they may all depart at the same time at A; as paths of different lengths take a
different time to travel, they cannot simultaneously arrive at B in a universe where
light moves at a finite velocity through space, in time in which case Feynman’s path
integral method couldn’t possibly work.
That Feynman’s ‘sumoverhistories’ method works proves that the communication
between particles is instant as only then the effects from all thousand paths can be
summed and processed simultaneously into the trajectory of the actual photon, into
behavior of all particles involved in the photon transmission, that there is a continuous,
instant exchange of information between them by means of which they express and
preserve their, each other’s properties: that we live in a selfcreating universe.
As the transmission of the photon changes the energy and momentum A and B have
according to all particles within their IH, it affects their own energy and/or momentum
so they all participate in its transmission, contribute to or absorb part of the photon’s
energy and momentum in a change of their position or state of motion so as seen from
their own rest frame, the forces they feel remain equally strong in all directions.
What Wheeler’s thousand balls virtual photons are supposed to do is collect and
(re)distribute some of the energy and momentum involved in the photon transmission
from and to all particles involved in the transmission: to communicate all physically
relevant information between all particles participating in it, to transform, process
what classically would be cause into effect.
As their communication is instant, all particles at all times are informed in real time
about each other’s properties, location and motion as far as they affect the frequency
they exchange energy at though it remains to be seen whether a particle can
distinguish between the different factors affecting their exchange frequency.
As the term ‘in real time’ was coined assuming that it is the same time everywhere,
that we may imagine to look at the universe from the outside at some particular
moment in cosmic time, being informed in real time in a BBU would mean an infinite
light velocity. In contrast, as a SCU doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own making, as
there is no universewide now, ‘in real time’ just means that all observers are equally
1 Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam (1998) J.A. Wheeler p 167168
93
right about the time an event happens as they participate in it, observe it to happen:
here it doesn’t make any sense to ask what precedes what in an absolute sense.
If when no point in spacetime, no observer or observing particle is more special than
any other, any particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction
horizon, its own universe, then it contains in its own properties, location, state and
motion relative to all objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it
contributes all relevant information about its environment not of the universe as there
is no such thing, but of its own universe, the universe it observes.
As the information about its environment is refreshed, updated in every cycle of its
energy exchange and the exchange is instant, we cannot think of that information as
carried by ‘a thousand balls,’ by virtual photons which move at a finite velocity through
space, in time, to collect and distribute information energy, momentum from and to
all particles involved in the photon transmission.
While classically the information these balls collect from and deliver to all particles
involved in the photon transmission is outdated by a time equal to the distance they
cover divided by the speed of light; in a SCU A and B are informed in real time about
their environment in the sense that B doesn’t passively receive that information but
participates in the events it observes, including the production and emission of the
photon it absorbs, so its emission by A doesn’t causally precede its absorption by B.
Like a hologram fragment contains all information of the entire hologram, in a universe
where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, a particle contains,
in its own properties, state, location and motion all physically relevant information
about all other particles within its interaction horizon, about its entire universe.
Like the hologram fragment gives a vaguer, fuzzier picture of the entire hologram as it
is smaller; the information a particle represents, contains about its universe is vaguer,
less defined, detailed as its rest energy is lower, as its own position and motion is less
definite and hence the world it observes from that fuzzier, less definite location.
The lower its rest energy is, the less defined, evolved its own properties are observed
to be, the lower it observes the energy to be of the objects in its environment, the less
defined it observes their behavior, their properties to be, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary
phase it observes its universe to be in. If the universe of a particle is like a hologram
and the observer is part of its universe she examines so he is himself depicted in the
hologram fragment in the particle he inspects, then he cannot but affect what he
observes by examining it, by subjecting it to a measurement interaction.
94
11
Why quantum mechanics works
The double-slit experimentIN THE BASIC version of the experiment1
… a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel
slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.
The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere,
producing bright and dark bands on the screen a result that would not be expected if light
consisted of classical particles. However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the
screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern
appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. … The particles do
not arrive at the screen in a predictable order, so knowing where all the previous particles
appeared on the screen and in what order tells nothing about where a future particle will
be detected. If there is a cancellation of waves at some point, that does not mean that a
particle disappears; it will appear somewhere else. Ever since the origination of quantum
mechanics, some theorists have searched for ways to incorporate additional determinants
or “hidden variables” that, were they to become known, would account for the location of
each individual impact with the target.
… electrons are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit.
As a photon is its own antiparticle, its energy in one phase as positive as it is negative in
the next, there would be no energy liberated if two identical photons would annihilate.
However, as the atoms of the light source did lose energy as they emitted the photons
and energy is conserved, they cannot annihilate, so if the atoms only can emit photons
which don’t annihilate, then they must know at the time of the emission when to emit
the photons and in which directions to prevent them to arrive in counterphase at the
same time at the same point on the screen and annihilate. In the particle picture of the
photon, the interference pattern on the screen therefore only can be explained if the
communication between all particles involved in the photon transmission, including
the particles of the light source, the plate with the slits and the screen is instant.
In the wave picture of the photon, however, no instant communication is needed to
explain the interference pattern unless we interpret the fact that the strength and
phase of the electromagnetic field associated with the waves at different points in
space only can vary in a coordinated, wavelike fashion, that these points only can know
what field values to adopt when if there is an instant communication between them.
Now if we shoot electrons at the slits instead of photons and a screen composed of tiny
electron detectors, then we find a similar interference pattern. While this result can be
explained as an interference between different electrons; we get the same result if we
shoot the electrons one at a time, meaning that each electron goes through both slits
and interferes with itself which would be impossible if electrons would be classical,
autonomous particles, particles the existence of which doesn’t depend on anything,
the properties of which only are the cause of interactions so the doubleslit experiment
shows that a massive particle its energy is a wave phenomenon, i.e., cause and effect
of its interactions, that its magnitude varies within every cycle of its oscillation, that its
sign in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next.2
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubleslit_experiment (2102019)2 If when the energy aka charge sign of a particle alternates, then it can be seen that an electric current in
a circuit can go in both directions simultaneously, like in a flux qubit.
95
As an electron in a SCU has to keep exchanging energy with all particles within its
interaction horizon to keep existing, an instant communication which provides it with
all relevant information about the experimental setup and the environment at large,
from the point of view of the electron the environment to which it owes its existence
splits into two slightly different worlds as it nears the slits, worlds which from both
splits and both sides of the plate exchange energy with the electron, such interference
is unavoidable. If the electron is a wave phenomenon so has no infinitesimal sharp,
fundamental boundary where it, its properties end and its environment begins, and we
were to take the indefiniteness in its position as a measure of its dimension1 and the
indefiniteness in the position it acts from varies in tandem with its energy so its size
twice in every cycle exceeds the distance between the slits, then it interferes with itself
from both slits and both sides of the plate.
While it acts more as a point particle at the times in its cycle when its energy, its rate of
change is maximal, as the indefiniteness in its position is minimal, as the area its energy
acts from is minimal; as in its low energy phase it acts more simultaneously and equally
and hence weaker from all points within a larger area, an area which comprises both
slits and both sides of the plate, it behaves more like a wave phenomenon. As in the
classical particle picture its rest energy (and hence its electric charge) is an intrinsic,
fixed, static quantity, only the cause of forces, it always is somewhere for 100% of the
time and with 100% of its energy, it only is the probability to find it somewhere in its
entirety, as a particle, which evolves in time; if in a SCU the sign and magnitude of its
energy and with it the indefiniteness in its position varies within every cycle of its
oscillation, we cannot predict by which detector, where on the screen the electron will
be detected unless we know the properties, position and motion of all particles within
its IH: as this is impossible, we only can calculate the probability to find it somewhere.
It was Werner Heisenberg who first realized the need to free ourselves from the belief that, say,
an electron has a well determined position at every time. When it is not interacting with an
external system that can detect its position, the electron can be “spread out” over different
positions. … [he] first recognized that the electron does not have a welldefined position when it
is not interacting.2
Schrödinger’s catTHE SUPPOSITION THAT the electron doesn’t have a welldefined position when it isn’t
interacting only might hold if it would have an autonomous existence, if it would keep
existing even if isolated from interactions, not in a universe where it has to exchange
energy to preserve and express its existence, its properties, where ‘to be’ is a verb.
If when the rest energy of a particle is the sum, the superposition of all wavelengths it
simultaneously exchanges energy in with particles at all distances which observe it to
have a different energy and are equally right about the energy it has then it can be
said to be in different states simultaneously or, if when its energy varies within every
cycle of its oscillation, it repeats3 all those different energies subsequently in every
cycle an observed energy which also depends on the rest energy of the observing
particle, its distance and motion relative to the observed.
1 The size of the area where the probability to find it is 99%, say.2 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qmrelational/ (7102019)3 The higher the rest energy it has according by a nearby observer, the higher the frequency it repeats all
those states meaning that it is observable from, interacts with particles at larger distance as clocks are
observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant.
96
If when it owes its energy to and contributes to the energy of all particles within its IH,
it participates in all events they are involved in, however weakly, then its own energy
will fluctuate as does the location where forces on it are equal from all directions, the
indefiniteness of its position, the probability to find it at some particular place in some
particular state. As we cannot keep track of the behavior of all particles which affect
the particle we examine, we cannot predict where it will be found, its momentum, in
what state when we subject it to a measurement (even if the measurement interaction
wouldn’t affect where and in what state it will be found), then in this sense we cannot,
before the measurement say where and in what state it is which, however, is not the
same as saying that it doesn’t have a welldefined position, of itself, when we don’t
interfere with it by measuring it: as it has to keep interacting with the particles to
which it owes is energy and to the energy of which it contributes, we cannot say that
‘the electron does not have a welldefined position when it is not interacting.’
The confusion originates in the classical assumption that its rest energy is a static
quantity, only the cause of forces so it always ought to be somewhere with 100% of its
properties, that even though we know that it is a wave phenomenon, we refuse to
accept that this means that the indefiniteness in its position varies with its energy, that
it twice in every cycle of its oscillation has a welldefined position, at the times its
energy, its rate of change is maximal, that the position of a particle at those times is
less indefinite as its energy, its rate of change is higher, the frequency it oscillates at.
If the electron could be at two places simultaneously, then so would be its mass:
According to the standard model, the electron … can be in two places at once because it is
described by a wave function. And according to general relativity, the mass of the electron
curves spacetime around it. But around which location? General relativity cannot answer
this question, since a curvature doesn’t have quantum properties and can’t be in two
places at once. … after a measurement of its position, the wave function must be updated
so that the measured state now has a probability of 1. This update sometimes referred to
as “collapse” or “reduction” is instantaneous; it happens at the same moment for the
entire wave function, regardless of how far the wave function was spread out. 1
If it could be at two places at once, then this also would violate the law of conservation
of energy: if this is impossible, then it cannot actually be at two places at the same time
which anyhow is impossible if there is no universewide now. If the (wavefunction
which describes the) probability to find it somewhere at some particular time is equal
at two places, then that doesn’t mean that it actually is at both places.
If we take the indefiniteness in its position as a measure of its size, of the area it acts
from, then it acts more simultaneously, more equally and hence weaker from all points
in a larger area in the phase of its cycle in which its energy is lower so no conservation
law is violated. Clearly, as in a SCU the communication between particle is instant, the
update of the wave function proceeds instantly everywhere, be it that the observation
when it happens where depends on the distance of the observer to the observed as
time in this universe is observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance.
The idea that an atom can be in multiple states or at different places simultaneously
that its state or location is indeterminate until it in some measurement interaction is
forced to choose between either one of its possible states or positions inspired Erwin
Schrödinger to his famous thought experiment.
A cat sits in a closed box along with a radioactive atom and a device which releases
poison gas when it detects the radiation the atom emits as it decays and the cat dies.
1 Lost in math (2018) Sabine Hossenfelder, p 179 and p 120
97
The supposition is that as long as we don’t look in the box, the atom and cat are in a
mixed state that the atom is neither decayed nor undecayed, the cat dead and alive,
and that it is the act of looking into the box which nudges the atom into a single state,
either decayed or undecayed and causes the cat to die or leave it be alive.
If the energy of the particles of an atom varies within every cycle of their oscillation,
then so does the extent to which their position and motion is defined. The lower their
energy is in some phase of their oscillation, the less definite their position and motion
is and with it the configuration they are part of, the more the different configurations
they may simultaneously be part of overlap or the less they can be distinguished from
each other, then the atom can appear to be in different states, configurations at the
same time, in its ground state and any excited state, its particles be part of temporary
configurations which correspond to decayed and undecayed states. If we are surprised
that the atom can be in different states simultaneously, then that is because it is at
odds with the classical idea that the properties of its particles, of the atom itself, are
intrinsic, static, interaction independent quantities which if true would mean that no
stable equilibrium between particles would be possible, no atoms, no universe.
Schrödinger’s thought experiment anyhow is flawed as it assumes that there can exist
a box which completely isolates its contents atom, device, cat from interactions with
the objects outside the box as the atom and cat wouldn’t then exist, have no physical
reality to, belong to the universe of the observer outside the box so it wouldn’t even
make sense to ask after the health of the cat or say that time passes inside of it.
Quantum entanglement: the EPR paradox AS EINSTEIN BELIEVED that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations
which causally precedes its observation, he couldn’t accept the indeterminacy implied
in the uncertainty principle according to which a particle cannot have both an exact
position and momentum simultaneously, so to show the absurdity of this he proposed,
together with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen a thought experiment showing that
such indeterminacy would imply action at a distance which relativity theory forbids.
In the EPR paper Einstein, Podolski and Rosen suppose that 1
… we have two systems, I and II, which we permit to interact from the time t = 0 to t = T,
after which time we suppose that there is no longer interaction between the two parts.
We suppose further that the states of the two systems before t = 0 were known.
Systems I and II can be two identical particles A and B, the interaction a collision by
means of which their states become entangled and after which they move in opposite
directions. As we can measure A’s position after the collision, we can infer from this B’s
exact position at the same time. As the authors assume that the measurement of A‘s
position hasn’t affected B’s motion, we can measure B’s momentum exactly so can
know both B’s position and momentum at the same time to an arbitrary accuracy
which is impossible according to the uncertainty principle. Wikipedia: 2
It is one thing to say that [the] measurement of the first particle's momentum affects [the]
uncertainty in its own position, but to say that measuring the first particle's momentum
affects the uncertainty in the position of the other is another thing altogether. Einstein,
Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined
momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating
with the other instantaneously across space, i.e., faster than light, this is the "paradox.”
1 http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf p 7792 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox (10102019)
98
Well, to say that A and B are entangled is at odds with the supposition that after the
entanglement interaction ‘there is no longer interaction between the two parts,’ no
communication between A and B and the measurement of A’s position indeed cannot
have affected B’s position and momentum after the collision which entangled them.
If as the authors insist their states remain entangled, then this already implies their
communication to be instant so the measurement of A cannot but affect B, which in a
universe where it is the same time everywhere implies action at a space distance, an
infinite light velocity, not in a SCU where we have an instant communication action
over any spacetime distance. It is the assumption that the universe has a beginning,
that it has been created by some outside intervention that particle properties are
privately owned quantities they were endowed with at their oneoff creation at the big
bang, only the cause of interactions, that they have an autonomous existence so don’t
have to interact to keep existing why the authors assume that A and B only interact if
we manipulate, collide them, say, or if nature forces them to interact in some event.
If we only can say that A and B are entangled if there is a continuous and instantaneous
communication between them, then the interaction by means of which A’s position is
measured doesn’t only affect A’s momentum but both B’s position and momentum as
well in which case we cannot infer from A’s measured position where B exactly was at
the time A’s position was measured if we hadn’t measured A’s position. Similarly, we
cannot say that ‘the states of the two systems before t = 0 is known’ that both the
exact position and momentum of A and B are defined, known to the last of an infinite
series of decimals unless it is known not only to us, but to nature itself, to all particles
within their IH since otherwise they wouldn’t be part of the same universe.
If both their states would be known exactly at t = 0, then A and B would be entangled
even before the collision in the sense that the information about their state is known
to, entangled with the state of all other particles within their interaction horizon, with
respect to which their position and momentum can be specified, regardless of whether
or not we can access that information without by measuring their position affect their
momentum or vice versa. We only can say that A and B are entangled, belong to each
other’s universe, if there is a continuous, instant exchange of information between
them so the confusion originates in the belief that we live in a universe where it is the
same time, where time passes at the same pace everywhere the assumption special
relativity is based upon why we came to assume that light is something which moves
at a finite velocity through space, in time.
It is curious how one can say that particles are entangled which presupposes their
communication to be instant yet in the same sentence deny such instantaneity:
Wikipedia 1
A possible resolution to the apparent paradox might be to assume that the state of the
particles contains some hidden variables whose values effectively determine, right from
the moment of separation, what the outcomes of the … measurements are going to be.
This would mean that each particle carries all the required information with it, and
nothing needs to be transmitted from one particle to the other at the time of
measurement.
In an effort to try to spirit the instantaneity problem away, hidden variable theory
assumes that the particles know what measurement they’re going to be subjected to
at the time they become entangled, whether their momentum or position or along
which axis their spin or polarization direction is going to be measured: that they can
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement (742018)
99
predict the future. Such clairvoyance, however, is excluded by experiments1 which
show that the spin or polarization direction of entangled particles is indeterminate
neither up nor down / left nor right along some axis before the measurement, that
we don’t measure the state they already were in, but that Schrödinger’s cat it is
the measurement which forces them to adopt either one of the possible directions,
information which then needs to be instantcommunicated between the entangled
particles. Such experiments prove that we live in a universe where the transmission
of information between all involved particles including those of the experimental
setup to measure their spin direction or the polarization filters the orientation of
which affects the spin or polarization A and B will be found to have is instant, that
there is a continuous exchange of energy, of information between all particles within
each other’s interaction horizon. Wikipedia 2
The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses
the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any
information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other
particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the
"proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. In the
Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a spin measurement on one of the particles is a
collapse into a state in which each particle has a definite spin (either up or down) along
the axis of measurement. The outcome is taken to be random, with each possibility having
a probability of 50%. However, if both spins are measured along the same axis, they are
found to be anticorrelated. This means that the random outcome of the measurement
made on one particle seems to have been transmitted to the other, so that it can make
the "right choice" when it too is measured.
Though the article continues by saying that
It is not even possible to say which of the measurements came first. … Therefore, the
correlation between the two measurements cannot be explained as one measurement
determining the other: different observers would disagree about the role of cause and
effect.
it doesn’t draw the inescaple conclusion that such experiments prove that big bang
cosmology the idea that it is the same time everywhere is fundamentally wrong.
If in a SCU their communication is instant, all physically relevant information about the
state of one particle is present, in real time, at all other particles it exchanges energy
with, with which it is entangled, then we obviously cannot subject it to a measurement
interaction without simultaneously affecting all other particles, without informing
them about the state it adopted when measured.
It is the continuous, instant energy information exchange between all involved
particles which effectuates what the hidden variables are supposed to do: instruct B
what polarization or spin direction to adopt when A, the particle it is oneonone
entangled with, by the measurement interaction performed on it is forced to choose
one or the other spin or polarization direction.
As the continuous exchange of energy, of information only serves to preserve the
status quo, to uphold the world we see, it seems to be hidden, as if there occurs no
such exchange at all, an exchange which only would become observable if we could cut
it off as the particles then would cease to exist and vanish without trace like the picture
on a TV when we pull its plug and with it the observer and his universe.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Testing_by_practical_experiments and
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.3129.pdf2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Paradox (652020)
100
The answer to the question the EPR paper asks whether the quantum mechanical
description of physical reality is complete depends on whether or not there exists a
completely knowable reality in the first place, whether there is a single, absolute,
objective reality at the origin of our observations causally preceding the observation
thereof which it only is in a classical mechanics, in a big bang universe.
While a BBU has an external reality we may imagine to look at from the outside; as a
SCU only exists as seen from within and by definition cannot have particular properties,
be in any particular state as a whole, there is no single, absolute, objective universe
wide reality, no universewide now all objects and observers live in, we must specify
the observer or observing particle when describing their universe, not the universe as
there is no such thing, but the universe they observe.
THOUGH THE WORLD at macroscopic level seems to constitute an objective reality and
obey causality so we can quantify the relation between cause and effect, predict the
result of experiments without which no science would be possible; at quantum level
the universe ultimately cannot be understood causally, only rationally obey the Nix
law from the point of view of the particles doing the creating.
While it is gravity, the tendency of energy to keep creating itself which drives the
changes we experience as the passing of time, which in imposing a direction on events
seems to enable us to distinguish cause from effect so the world at macroscopic level
does appear to live in a time realm not of its own making, as if it is the same time, as if
time passes at the same pace everywhere even when nothing would happen, change;
instead of saying that the sign of the energy of particles alternates in time we can as
well say that they alternately move in forward and backward time directions, that they
oscillate about some zerotime point as they keep creating and uncreating each other
over and over again in every cycle of their energy exchange.
Instead of saying that particles in some mysterious manner were created with a certain
rest mass at the big bang and masses for some unfathomable reason attract so tend to
contract to stars and galaxies as time passes that time eternally passes at the same,
particular unperturbable pace anyway no matter whether something happens, changes
or not; if the definition of what a universe is implies that particle properties are cause
and effect of their interactions that they only acquire mass if and when they contract
to stars and galaxies, changes we experience as the passing of time, that it is gravity,
the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself then the observed sequence
of events does not prove that the earlier event is cause of the later one.
If particles only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact and
the energy they observe each other to have, the evolutionary phase they observe each
other to be in depends on their distance if the energy, the evolutionary phase it is
observed to be in by a nearby observer is a superposition of energies, of evolutionary
phases, all of which keep contributing to the energy she observes it to have, phases
which remain components of the relatively ‘late’ phase she observes it to have (in what
only to her is the present), then we cannot even speak about an ‘earlier’ phase as this
presupposes that it has vanished, disappeared from the universe: as we can as well say
that it is its relatively ‘late,’ high energy phase which makes it possible to be observed
to have a low energy, to be in an ‘early’ phase of its evolution by a distant observer, we
cannot say that one phase causally precedes the other.
While the assumption of BBC that the universe grows older at the same pace anywhere
means that the early evolutionary phases of the entire universe, of galaxies eventually
should vanish into the past, be no longer part of the universe at later times; this is at
odds with the fact that as a galaxy in a BBU is observed to be as it was at an earlier time
101
in the past as it is more distant so what happened in the past in that galaxy keeps
affecting events in other galaxies at later times, the earlier events in and the earlier
phases of the galaxy don’t actually cease to exist, vanish from the universe which
reminds of Faulkner’s remark that ‘the past is never dead. It’s not even past.’
The point of this diversion is to emphasize that we cannot, as in BBC, speak about the
of the evolutionary phase particles, starts and galaxies are in without specifying the
observer or observing particle: that there is no single, objective reality at the origin of
our observations, which is the same to all observers and observing particles at least
not a particle quantum level.
As the universe of every observing particle always contains particles in all possible
phases of their evolution, terms like earlier and later are relative, local notions so we
cannot say that the evolutionary phase we observe a particle or galaxy in is the state in
which it is, of itself as there is no such thing in a SCU. Moreover, we only can say that a
particle or galaxy is in some particular evolutionary phase if and when it actually is
observed to be in that phase and only to that observer or to identical observers at the
same distance and who are in the same state of motion relative to the observed.
THE ADVANTAGE OF particles of being in different states, at different places, moving in
different ways, of being part of different configurations at once or oscillating between
such states, places, configurations of an indefiniteness in their position and motion
which varies within every cycle combined with an instant communication is that it
facilitates their evolution to elementary particles as it the instant feedback between
particles which allows them to coordinate and adjust their properties / behavior to
each other, to the circumstances they create and are the product of.
So Instead of throwing dice the faces of which are numbered 1 to 6 until a winning
combination comes up (which to determine presumes that there are criteria about
what might constitute a winning viable combination of particle properties, species,
laws and constants of nature that the laws of nature are operational even before
there are particles); it is gravity which in favoring more compact, (UP) higherenergy
above less compact, lowerenergy configurations paves the way for successively more
viable configurations particle properties, species, atomic nuclei which, combined with
an instant communication speeds up their evolution to elementary particles, without
which there would be no evolution possible. So it isn’t that the numbers of the dice are
fixed before the throw and it only is the accidental combination of numbers of the dice
in a throw which determines, by chance alone, the direction of their evolution; the
numbers of the dice the properties of the different particles themselves are
ambiguous, indeterminate, subject to evolution until the throw whether they come up
as a collection of weakly bound particles, particles without welldefined properties,
positions and momenta or as strongly bound, cohesive, organized collective of particles
with different, distinct yet entangled properties: that it are the properties of the
different particles which managed to survive a trial and error evolution the repeated
throwing of the dice which determine, paint the numbers on the faces of the dice so
to say, the properties of the particles in atomic nuclei and atoms and vice versa, the
properties of the atomic nuclei and electrons the properties of stars and galaxies
which determine those of their component particles and vice versa.
102
You can't say A is made of B / or vice versa. / All mass is interaction Richard Feynman 1
12
Higgs and the origin of massIF THE DEFINITION of what a universe is implies that particles, particle properties are
cause and effect of their interactions, then can it make sense to accuse one particle
species Higgs bosons of causing particles like electrons and quarks to have mass?
Frank Wilczek 2
The bad news is that nothing in these ideas explains the origin of the mass of the Higgs
particle itself, nor do they greatly elucidate the observed complicated structure of quark
and lepton masses and mixings.
If we don’t know what caused the Higgs particle to have mass (nor can calculate its
value from first principle), then can we claim to understand the origin of the mass of
electrons, quarks and W and Z particles? To say that it owes its mass to selfinteraction
with its own field doesn’t explain anything as long as we don’t know the origin of that
field unless we say that it is caused by its quanta Higgs bosons and we have a circular
reasoning. If we say that the Higgs field or the mass of the Higgs boson is caused by
another, as yet undiscovered particle, a particle the mass of which to explain requires
the existence of yet another particle which causes it to have mass and this goes on at
infinitum, then we cannot understand the origin of mass even in principle, while if we
say that there is a primordial particle which causes the Higgs boson to have mass, then
the mass of that particle and hence the mass of the Higgs particle similarly cannot be
explained.
If the universe at quantum level cannot be understood causally, only rationally then a
mechanism which tries to explain the mass of particles as the effect of some cause
cannot possibly enlighten us about the origin of mass. One problem of the present
approach in the quest for the origin of mass is that in assuming that particle properties
only are the cause of forces, we came to think of the mass, electric and color charge of
particles as qualitatively different, unrelated quantities, as if an electron, say, has two
batteries, one filled with gravitational charge and the other with electric charge.
However, if in a SCU any kind of charge contributes to, is an expression of the energy of
particles, if the energy involved in one interaction, associated with one force, one kind
of charge powers and is powered by all other interactions it simultaneously is involved
in due to other charges and even its motion, its kinetic energy is a source of gravity and
powers what we observe as its mass, then it is unlikely that mass is a charge a particle
has independent from, in addition to other kinds of charge.
If mass in a SCU cannot causally precede gravity and energy is a source of gravity, we
may call that energy ‘mass’ and an object only can be said to have energy if it has a
position from which it can act, if according to the UP the energy of a particle is higher
as the position it acts from is less indefinite, then the uncertainty principle defines the
rest mass of a particle as greater as the position of its mass center is less indefinite.
The advantage of this definition is that it links energy and spacetime, agreeing with the
proposition that it is localized energy which turns an abstract space where, if it would
make sense to speak about the pace of time, it would pass at the same pace anywhere
into a real spacetime, as opposed to BBC where concepts like ‘energy density of the
universe’ and ‘cosmic time’ define energy, space and time as independent, unrelated
1 Quoted in Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992) by James Gleick p. 52 Origins of Mass (2012) Frank Wilczek p 31 http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.7114
103
quantities which if true would mean that space and time exist even in the absence of
energy, that a particle can exist, have mass in an otherwise empty universe, suggesting
‘the a priori existence of spacetime, which matter merely modifies and does not create.
If ‘all mass is interaction’ means that all interactions between particles due to any kind
of charge contribute to their energy, their mass, then it isn’t a gravitational charge they
have independent from, in addition to other kinds of charge, especially in a universe
where a charge cannot causally precede the force it powers and is powered by.
The idea of mass as a gravitational charge may originate in the assumption that particle
properties are intrinsic, static quantities, only the cause of forces so the electric charge
of a particle is either positive or negative, always,1 so charged particles, depending on
their charge sign, either attract or repulse a force which, as it only can be as strong as
the counterforce it meets, requires the existence of a qualitatively different, unrelated
kind of charge a gravitational charge to overcome the electric repulsion between
protons to enable them to form atomic nuclei. Though the electric force is said to be
much stronger than gravity; the electric repulsion between two protons in practice
only can become as strong as the counterforce gravity it meets. If any kind of charge
contributes to their energy, including their electric charge, then their charge would
power two opposite forces. If when in a SCU their position becomes less indefinite as
their distance decreases so their energy increases and with it both their electric
repulsion and their gravitational attraction, and a charge cannot causally precede the
force it powers and is powered by, its expression as a force, we can as well say that
both their electric charge and mass increases, that it is gravity which, in creating its
own counter force, creates, powers their electric charge.
Frank Wilczek 2
Einstein’s original paper does not contain the equation E = mc², but rather m = E/c² … The
title of the original paper is a question: Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy
Content? … I think he would have been delighted to learn that our answer to his question
is a resounding “Yes!” Not only does the inertia of bodies depend on its energy content;
for ordinary matter most of inertia is the energy associated with moving quarks and
gluons, themselves essentially massless, following m = E/c².
While most of the mass of baryons may originate in the motion of quarks and gluons;
as without a nonzero rest mass, the kinetic energy E = ½ mv² of quarks cannot increase
and cause the mass of baryons, quarks are thought to owe their tiny ‘starter’ mass to
interactions with the Higgs field, a mass which subsequently is enhanced by their
motion. If gluons indeed move at the speed of light so their position is completely
indefinite, then they cannot express their energy, contribute to the mass of baryons.
If a selfcreating universe definition cannot have particular properties, be in any single,
particular state as a whole, then the Higgs field which is supposed to pervade all of
space cannot have the same nonzero value everywhere it must have if it is to cause
identical particles to have the same mass everywhere, always, to be identical.
The homogeneity of the Higgs field seems to serve as a regular grid relative to which
we can specify the location and motion of particles, to keep the starter masses of
quarks and rest masses of electrons, W and Z bosons constant, the same throughout
the universe, something which, once acquired via the Higgs field only acts as the cause
of interactions, as if they would keep existing even when prevented to interact, be it
1 As opposed to the color charge of quarks, which as it is supposed to alternate, suggests that their
properties their color and electric charge are dynamic quantities, cause and effect of their interactions.2 The Universe Is a Strange Place (2005) Frank Wilczek p 6, http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0511067
104
without mass in the absence of the Higgs field. However, if when the IH’s, the universes
of two particles coincide, overlap less as they are farther apart so the part of their
energy they owe to each other is lower so their behavior, their properties are less
related, their interactions weaker, then it makes less sense to say that it are identical
particles. If such distant, ‘alien’ particles in the course of time migrate through space,
then they may elsewhere cause observations indicating the existence of dark matter.
THE IDEA IS that particles like electrons and quarks have no intrinsic mass but acquire
mass by interacting with the Higgs field, a mass which is enhanced by their motion.
Max Jammer:
That our contemporary knowledge about particles can hardly be expected to solve the
problem of mass is clearly shown by the fact that the mass spectrum of elementary
particles has so far defied any explanation. Nobody knows why the mass of the electron is
about 0.0005 GeV, that of the muon about 0.11 GeV, that of the tauon 2 GeV and that of
the topquark about 170 GeV. All attempts to find a general formula for these so widely
diverging massvalues in the hope that it would lead to an explanatory theory, just as the
Balmer formula for the spectral lines of hydrogen was a clue for the construction of
quantum mechanics have failed. … [] … the Higgs mechanism … is often credited with
explaining the ‘origin’ or ‘genesis’ of mass. But if a process ‘generates’ mass it may
reasonably be expected to provide information about the nature of what it ‘generates’ as
well. In order to see whether this is really the case we should, of course, know the
‘machinery’ of this mechanism. [] ... the Higgs mechanism is based on the assumption of
the existence of a … “Higgs field,” which permeates all of space. By coupling with this field
a massless particle acquires a certain amount of potential energy and, hence, according to
the massenergy relation, a certain mass. The stronger the coupling, the more massive the
particle. 1
The way particles are thought to acquire mass in their interactions with the Higgs field is
somewhat analogous to the way pieces of blotting paper absorb ink. … the pieces of paper
represent individual particles and the ink represents energy, or mass. Just as pieces of
paper of different size and thickness soak up varying amounts of ink, different particles
‘soak up’ varying amounts of energy or mass. The observed mass of a particle depends on
the particle’s ‘energy absorbing’ ability, and on the strength of the Higgs field in space.2
Or as Abdul Salam once expressed it: “The massless … particles ‘eat’ the Higgs particles (or
field) in order to gain weight, and the swallowed Higgs particles become ghosts.”
It should now be clear that in the Higgs mechanism mass is not ‘generated’ in the particle
by a miraculous ‘creatio ex nihilo,’ it is only transferred to the particle from the Higgs field,
which contained it in the form of energy. …
Thus, in spite of all the strenuous efforts of physicists and philosophers, the notion of
mass, although fundamental in physics, is … still shrouded in mystery. 1
If the particles which owe their rest mass to the Higgs field are to have the same value
everywhere, the field must have the same value everywhere, its quanta be distributed
uniformly over space, so if the Higgs mechanism is to explain anything, it must explain
how the field came to be switched on and why it has the value it has, the origin of its
energy and how its quanta came to be and managed to remain distributed uniformly
over space as gravity between them would amplify any inhomogeneity and destroy the
homogeneity of the field necessary to ensure that these particles have the same mass
everywhere. Moreover, it also should explain how the particles it is to provide with
mass can know what mass they ought to pick up from the field, of the origin of the
property which enables them to soak up the right amount of energy, how they can
know what kind of particle they are to going to be when they grow up and let’s not ask
1 Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (2000) Max Jammer p 1611672 The Higgs Boson, Martinus Veltman, in Scientific American (1986) p 76
105
whether, if any kind of charge contributes to the energy, the mass of particles, they
also pick up other properties from the Higgs field, like electric and color charge.
Martinus Veltman, in 1986 1
In order to endow particles with mass, the Higgs field, if it exists, would have to assume a
uniform, nonzero value even in the vacuum. … The Higgs force is not a universal force,
because it couples differently to different particles. Specifically, if a particle is observed to
have mass, the strength of the coupling to the Higgs field is assumed to be whatever
quantity is necessary to generate precisely that mass. Presumably the Higgs field does not
couple to the photon, since experiment shows the photon is massless. But apparently it
couples to the W+, W and Z0 particles, because they do have mass. It should perhaps be
noted that particles could have a mass of their own, in addition to what they are thought
to acquire from the Higgs field.
Curiously, however, in the standard model not a single particle could have a mass of its
own without destroying the mathematical completeness of the theory. From a physical
point of view little is gained by proposing that the Higgs boson accounts for mass. It is not
known, for example, why the Higgs field should couple more strongly to some particles
than it does to others. Nor do investigators understand how the mass of the Higgs boson
itself (which is not known) comes about, although it is generally presumed to be
dominantly through a selfinteraction with the Higgs field. In this sense ignorance about
the origin of particle masses is replaced by ignorance about particleHiggs couplings, and
no real knowledge is gained.
Moreover … the graviton … should couple to anything that carries energy, including the
Higgs field. The coupling of the graviton to the Higgs field ever present in all space would
generate a huge “cosmological constant: ”it would curve the universe into an object
roughly the size of a football. If the Higgs boson is assumed to have roughly the same mass
as the weak vector bosons, the energy density of the Higgs field in the vacuum would be
10 trillion times greater than the density of matter in an atomic nucleus. If the Earth were
compressed to this density, its volume would be approximately 500 cubic centimeters, or
a bit more than the size of a softdrink can. Needless to say, this is contrary to experiment.
The theorists' way out is really something. It is assumed that the “true” vacuum (one
without a Higgs field) is curved in a negative sense: it has a cosmological constant equal in
magnitude but opposite in sign to the one generated by the Higgs field. The introduction
of the Higgs field then flattens out space to make precisely the universe as we know it.
This solution is, of course, not very satisfactory, and many ingenious attempts have been
made to solve the problem of the huge cosmological constant. None of the attempts has
succeeded. If anything, matters have grown worse because theorists keep dumping more
particles and fields into the vacuum.
… the only legitimate reason for postulating the Higgs boson is to make the standard
model mathematically consistent. … the introduction of the Higgs boson to give such
consistency had nothing to do with its introduction to account for mass.
The supposition that the Higgs field would curve the universe ‘into an object roughly
the size of a football’ again shows how difficult it is to not think about it as an ordinary
object the size of which BFPD can be measured even from outside the universe, as if it
lives in a space realm not of its own making, as if the length of the meter is defined
even outside of it. Leon Lederman: 2
So Higgs is great. Why, then, hasn’t it been universally embraced? Peter Higgs, who loaned
his name to the concept (not willingly), works on other things. Martinus Veltman, one of
the Higgs architects, calls it a rug under which we sweep our ignorance. Sheldon Glashow
is less kind, calling it a toilet in which we flush away the inconsistencies of our present
theories.
1 Ibid. Veltman (1986) p 7680.2 The God Particle (1993) M. Lederman p 375
106
While the critique of these Nobel laureates may, for the time being, have been silenced
by the discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson; that doesn’t necessarily
prove that it gives mass to electrons, quarks, W and Z bosons, especially as we don’t
know the origin of the mass of the Higgs boson nor does the Higgs mechanism answer
any of the above objections and questions or solve the problem of the Higg’s mass: 1
The Higgs is the only known particle of its type, and its suffers from a peculiar
mathematical problem that the other elementary particles are immune to: quantum
fluctuations make a huge contribution to the Higg’s mass. Contributions like this are
normally small, but for the Higgs they lead to a mass much larger than is observed too
large, indeed, by a factor of 10 14. Not a little bit off, but dramatically, inadmissibly wrong.
If according to the UP the energy of a particle is higher as the position its energy acts
from as a source of gravity, then the rest mass particles observe, cause each other to
have (if they would be able to distinguish between the rest mass of a particle and its
expression as gravity) is related to their distance. If it is invariant, then that doesn’t
mean that it is an interaction independent quantity, but because it only can change if
the energy increases of all particles within its IH which, due to the tendency of energy
in a SCU to increase, they eventually will, like when they contract at places. If it is a
quantity intrinsically related to space and time, if it is the energy, the mass of a particle
which makes positions in its vicinity (at an extremely short distance from its mass
center) physically different, then it is hard to see how particles can have a mass they
owe to the Higgs field, a mass which is unrelated to their distance, to space and time.
If an electron only can interact with the Higgs field if it has energy and energy is a
source of gravity so it already has mass, then what would it need Higgs for?
Can nature really be so inefficient as to create masschallenged particles, invent Higgs
bosons to give them mass and subsequently craft gravitons to communicate that mass?
However, the accuracy of the predictions2 of the Higgs mechanism is so impressive that
it raises the question whether it does what the continuous energy exchange between
particles in a SCU does: express and preserve their, each other’s properties, to preserve
the status quo, an exchange which if cut off would make the universe cease to exist.
1 Lost in Math (2018) Sabine Hossenfelder p. 372 “The success of the Higgsbased electroweak theory and Standard Model is illustrated by their
predictions of the mass of two particles later detected: the W boson (predicted mass: 80.390 ± 0.018 GeV,
experimental measurement: 80.387 ± 0.019 GeV), and the Z boson (predicted mass: 91.1874 ± 0.0021,
experimental measurement: 91.1876 ± 0.0021 GeV). Other accurate predictions included the weak neutral
current, the gluon, and the top and charm quarks, all later proven to exist as the theory said.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#cite_notepredictions20 (2732020)
107
I believe that there are 55,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,
527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,633,033,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of
electrons. Arthur Eddington 1
Theories of explosions, including the first picoseconds of the big bang … are unfalsifiable, not
withstanding widely cited ... “evidence” such as isotopic abundances at the surfaces of stars and
the cosmic microwave background anisotropy. One might as well claim to infer the properties of
atoms from the storm damage of a hurricane. Robert B. Laughlin 2
13
Observational evidence for a big bang universe WHILE THE OBSERVATIONAL evidence for a big bang seems so overwhelming that
almost all physicists take it for a fact; if the universe by definition cannot have certain
properties, be in any particular state as a whole so BBC describes a fictitious universe,
then we need to reexamine the interpretation of the observations BBC is based upon
and look for observations which are inconsistent with its predictions.
The evidence for the big bang consists of the redshift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave
background radiation (CMB); the relative abundances of light elements which, as they
cannot have been formed in stars, must have been synthesized shortly after the big
bang, the distribution of quasars, the metallicity of stars and nebulae and the evolution
and large scale structure of the universe.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiationAS ACCORDING TO big bang cosmology all elementary particles were created ready
made shortly into the big bang3 and their properties only are the cause of interactions,
their distribution over space should be more or less random, inhomogeneous, it came
as a surprise that the cosmic microwave background radiation was observed to be
about the same in all directions. The idea of an (in)homogeneous distribution of
particles like the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ presupposes that space
exists independent from the presence of particles as opposed to a selfcreating
universe where it is localized energy which turns an abstract space into a real, physical
spacetime, where there is no spacetime in the absence of particles, of energy.
The CBM is supposed to be relic radiation emitted some 380,000 years after the big
bang, to originate from the time when the universe was cooled enough for electrons
and protons to form electrically neutral hydrogen so photons could travel freely
without being immediately (re)absorbed by free electrons and protons as a result of
which and the universe became transparent to radiation. Due to the expansion of
space the wavelength of the photons which existed at the time became stretched,
redshifted to its present value, corresponding to a temperature of about 2.72⁰ Kelvin.
As an expanding universe implies that regions which are sufficiently far apart recede
from each other faster than the speed of light, what happens in one region cannot
affect what in happens in the other. As with the passing of time the region from which
we can receive light increases our observation horizon recedes from us at the speed of
light new areas will come into view.
The curious thing, now, is that these new regions look no different from other regions:
they have a CMB which is isotropic to about one part in 100,000.
1 Cosmology and Controversy (1996) Helge Kragh p 672 A Different Universe. Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (2005) Robert B. Laughlin p 211.3 Or evolved within 10−36 second after the start of the big bang.
108
This is the horizon problem: how came these regions to have the same temperature if
they are too far apart to ever have been able to interact, communicate and smooth out
temperature differences?
To explain how the universe came to look as it does today, it would have to have
started from improbably finetuned initial conditions at the big bang. Another problem,
the flatness problem, arises from the fact that for the universe to look flat today
… some of the initial conditions of the universe … [must have been] be finetuned to very
'special' values, and that small deviations from these values would have extreme effects
on the appearance of the universe at the current time. In the case of the flatness problem,
the parameter which appears finetuned is the density of matter and energy in the
universe. This value affects the curvature of spacetime, with a very specific critical value
being required for a flat universe. … The ratio of the actual density to this critical value is
called Ω, and its difference from 1 determines the geometry of the universe: Ω > 1
corresponds to a greater than critical density ρ > ρc and hence a closed universe, Ω < 1
gives a low density open universe, and Ω equal to exactly 1 gives a flat universe. …
The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value.
Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time, the early
universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by
one part in 10 62 or less. … a very small departure of Ω from 1 in the early universe would
have been magnified during billions of years of expansion … In the case of an overdensity
[Ω > 1] this would lead to a universe so dense it would cease expanding and collapse into a
Big Crunch in a few years or less; in the case of an underdensity [Ω < 1] it would expand so
quickly and become so sparse it would soon seem essentially empty, and gravity would
not be strong enough by comparison to cause matter to collapse and form galaxies.1
To spirit these finetuning problems away, the universe is proposed to have undergone
a rapid exponential expansion2 from 10−36 second after the big bang whereby nearby
regions with different energy density were separated so fast that they disappeared
beyond each other’s horizon, an inflation which, to fit observations, must have ended
sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the big bang after which space starts
to expand at its normal rate whatever ‘normal’ means if its rate cannot be inferred
from first principles. This inflation is supposed to be caused by a hypothetical inflaton
field which permeates all of space and has a huge potential energy which, as the field
goes to its ground state, is released and drives the expansion of space.
As the new regions which come into view today
… are exactly the same regions that were pushed out of the horizon during inflation …
they are at nearly the same temperature and curvature, because they come from the
same originally small patch of space. The theory of inflation thus explains why the
temperatures and curvatures of different regions are so nearly equal. It also predicts that
the total curvature of a spaceslice at constant global time is zero. This prediction implies
that the total ordinary matter, dark matter and residual vacuum energy in the Universe
have to add up to the critical density … 3
The idea is that however inhomogeneous the universe may have been initially, we
always can choose areas sufficiently small that each of these original patches of space
was almost completely homogeneous and that our present observable universe
consists of one of these tiny, since that time inflated and expanded patches of space
and that our present observation horizon hasn’t yet exceeded the boundary of this
original, homogeneous patch of space and, if the expansion of the universe indeed
accelerates, never will.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem (1392019)2 That is, a the scale factor, the ‘size’ of the universe grows as e λ t with time t, and λ a constant3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) (21102019)
109
As to the flatness problem, the inflaton field
… contains a certain energy density, but unlike the density of the matter or radiation
present in the late universe, which decrease over time, the density of the inflationary field
remains roughly constant as space expands. Therefore, the term ρa² increases extremely
rapidly as the scale factor a grows exponentially.
Recalling the Friedmann equation (Ω 1 − 1) ρa² = − 3kc² / 8πG and the fact that the right
hand side of this expression is constant, the term |Ω 1 − 1| must therefore decrease with
time. Thus if |Ω 1 − 1| initially takes any arbitrary value, a period of inflation can force it
down towards 0 and leave it extremely small around 10 62 as required … Subsequent
evolution of the universe will cause the value to grow, bringing it to the currently
observed value of around 0.01. Thus the sensitive dependence on the initial value of Ω has
been removed: a large and therefore 'unsurprising' starting value need not become
amplified and lead to a very curved universe with no opportunity to form galaxies and
other structures. 1
While it is nice to decrease |Ω 1 − 1|so that whatever value the initial energy density
and distribution of the universe actually might have been before inflation doesn’t in
any way affect how the universe looks today; its credibility is undermined by the fact
that we can tweak the critical factors of the theory the rate of inflation and the times
it starts and stops to fit (our interpretation of) observations as in doing so we just
replace one improbability −that the universe without inflation has the exact right initial
density− with the improbability that these factors all have the exact right values to
make the CMB isotopic and the universe flat.2 As to cut the relation between its initial
and present value is to cut off any relation between cause and effect, inflation doesn’t
solve the fine tuning problem but only makes it appear that we solved it.
Because the exponential, accelerating expansion of space
… stretches out any initial variations in density or temperature to very large length scales,
an essential feature of inflation is that it smooths out inhomogeneities, anisotropies and
reduces the curvature of space. This pushes the Universe into a very simple state in which
it is completely dominated by the inflaton field and the only significant inhomogeneities
are tiny quantum fluctuations. … [which] form the primordial seeds for all structure
created in the later universe. …
During inflation, the energy density in the inflaton field is roughly constant. However, the
energy density in everything else, including inhomogeneities, curvature, anisotropies,
exotic particles, and standardmodel particles is falling, and through sufficient inflation
these all become negligible. This leaves the Universe flat and symmetric, and (apart from
the homogeneous inflaton field) mostly empty, at the moment inflation ends. … The
nature of the inflaton field is currently not known.3
Inflation increased
… the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10 26 (and possibly a
much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10 78. Expansion by
a factor of 10 26 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10 9 m)… in length to
one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long. … It is not known exactly
when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10 33 and 10
32 seconds after the Big Bang.4 … Inflation is a period of supercooled expansion, when the
temperature drops by a factor of 100,000 or so. … This relatively low temperature is
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem (16122018)2 The road to reality (2004) Roger Penrose p 752 759; A critique from one of the architects of inflation:
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf3 With a the scale factor (essentially the 'size' of the universe) and ρ the total density of mass and energy
in the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) (13122018)4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch (10122018)
110
maintained during the inflationary phase. When inflation ends the temperature returns to
the preinflationary temperature; this is called reheating … because the large potential
energy of the inflaton field decays into particles and fills the Universe with Standard
Model particles, including electromagnetic radiation, starting the radiation dominated
phase of the Universe. Because the nature of the inflation is not known, this process is still
poorly understood …1
As the expansion of space exhausts the potential energy of the inflaton field, space
only can keep inflating if the freshly created space comes with the same highenergy
density −until the time the freshly created energy decides to convert itself into the
particles of the Standard Model instead of reproducing itself and keep inflating space:
In standard cosmology, there are three components of the universe: matter, radiation,
and dark energy. Matter is anything whose energy density scales with the inverse cube of
the scale factor, i.e., ρ ∝ a−3, while radiation is anything which scales to the inverse fourth
power of the scale factor (ρ ∝ a−4). … For radiation, the decrease in energy density is
greater, because an increase in spatial distance also causes a redshift. The final
component, dark energy, is an intrinsic property of space, and so has a constant energy
density regardless of the volume under consideration (ρ ∝ a0). Thus, unlike ordinary
matter, it does not get diluted with the expansion of space.2 … The simplest explanation
for dark energy is that it is an intrinsic, fundamental energy of space. This is the
cosmological constant … Λ … Since energy and mass are related according to the equation
E = mc 2, … this energy will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum
energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum. The cosmological constant has
negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe
to accelerate. The reason a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from
classical thermodynamics. In general, energy must be lost from inside a container (the
container must do work on its environment) in order for the volume to increase.
Specifically, a change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −P dV,
where P is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a container full of vacuum actually
increases when the volume increases, because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ is the
energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, P is negative and, in fact, P = −ρ. 3
One problem is that we only can speak about the density of the energy which is to
drive the expansion of space if it could have any value at all, if energy and space would
be unrelated quantities (so it cannot be understood even in principle why it has the
value it has, why space expands at the rate it does), then it cannot be an intrinsic
property of space, another how this energy can decide when to start to convert itself
into Standard Model particles instead of keep expanding space. As the cosmological
constant was very large during inflation, zero thereafter to take on a tiny value some
nine billion years later as the expansion of the universe starts to accelerate so varies at
will, it isn’t an intrinsic property of space after all.
If energy only can act if it has a position to act from, if it can be localized, if the energy
of particles is cause and effect of their interactions, a dynamic, wavelike quantity, in
one phase as positive as it is negative in the next so cannot power a force which is
either attractive or repulsive, then there cannot be two independent, opposite kinds of
energy the relative amounts of which we can adjust to fit observations. As we cannot
at the time of the big bang predict from first principle the rate of expansion of space at
any time, the inflation hypothesis and cosmological constant are ad hoc inventions to
save the big bang tale and don’t explain the observed isotropy of the CMB and flatness
of the universe.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Reheating (16122018)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Technical_definition (1932019)3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant (1932019)
111
It isn’t only unclear how the inflaton field knew when to start to decay into what kinds
of particles in what ratio, how they knew what properties they ought to pop up with; if
they only appear at the end of inflation, then what did the initial inhomogeneities of
the universe inflation is to smooth out consist of? If when the position of massless
particles like photons and gravitons is completely indefinite, they cannot act as the
source of such inhomogeneities, then that must mean that there already were massive
particles before inflation, so if the universe wasn’t able to distribute them uniformly
over space before inflation, then how did it manage to install a perfectly homogenous
inflaton field, distribute its quanta uniformly over space?
If the quanta of the inflaton field have energy and gravitons couple to anything which
has energy, then shouldn’t they couple to inflatons like they should, but fail to couple
to the quanta of the Higgs field and cause space to contract instead of inflating it?
The theory also doesn’t specify what event triggered the transition of the metastable
inflaton field from its high potential energy to its ground state and started the inflation:
if the information about the occurrence of the triggering event cannot travel faster
than light so instructions that the field should start inflating space arrive at different
times at different places or such triggering events happen randomly at different places
and times, then it would cause instead of smooth out inhomogeneities even though
they may be unobservable, beyond our observation horizon. If, on the other hand, the
quanta of the inflaton field have a clock aboard and are preprogrammed at the big
bang about the rate at which they are to drive the inflation and when to start and stop
inflating space, then this suggests that the universe has been created by some outside
intervention and, as the expansion of the universe began to accelerate some four
billion years ago, that there is a continuing interference from outside the universe.
Inflation therefore doesn’t solve the horizon problem but just dilutes and inflates them
out of sight by choosing the size of the original patch of space which is to expand to the
present observable universe, the rate at which it inflates and the times to start and
stop inflating to fit observations and solve the flatness problem by uncoupling its
present curvature from whatever value the initial energy density of the universe
actually might have been −if the concept would make any sense to begin with.
In fact, the energy of the inflaton field requires an improbable fine tuning itself:
If we assume … that the cosmological constant has been constant at all times, then we run
into a new difficulty visàvis inflation. The universe was driven to inflate because of the
extra energy it obtained from a phase transition. That energy is very similar to the dark
energy and inflation of the universe to that in the classic …model of de Sitter. … Thus
there was an effective cosmological constant that drove the inflationary universe. Only the
time scale for inflation was very short and so the corresponding cosmological constant
was very large, compared to its present value. How large? It was large by a factor 10 108 …
So prima facie one is forced to conclude that after the inflation was over, the extra energy
almost disappeared , leaving behind an extremely tiny fraction of the order of one part in
this large number. Further, this leftover has to be very finely tuned, otherwise, the whole
expansion of the universe would go astray. This is ironical, since the one reason for
invoking inflation was to avoid fine tuning of precisely this nature. … Now it appears that
inflation brought its own fine tuning to an even greater degree! To avoid this problem one
needs to have a dynamical mechanism which would reduce the cosmological constant
from its initial very large value to what is required today.1
Though we can speculate that there are many universes and that the one we live in
accidentally has the right properties for beings to evolve which are surprised to find
1 Facts and Speculations in Cosmology (2008) J.V. Narlikar, G. Burbidge p 222223
112
themselves in a flat universe with an isotropic CMB so no improbable fine tuning is
needed; in a SCU any finetuning occurs during the trial and error evolution selecting
what particle properties, species and associated laws and constants of nature survive,
no outside intervention is needed.
If the definition of what a universe is implies the communication between particles to
be instant, then the CMB radiation is produced as we observe it, whatever its origin
keeping in mind that unlike in a BBU where we see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in
a distant past, in the past; in a SCU we see it in an ‘earlier’ phase of its evolution, as it is
as we look at it in what only to us is the present. It is because in BBC the rest energy of
particles is supposed to be an intrinsic, interaction independent quantity, only the
cause of forces because the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ defines energy
and space as independent quantities why a big bang is expected to have produced a
inhomogeneous distribution of matter in the first place, why we came to think of
empty space as if it is some rarefied kind of stuff which is the same and is produced at
the same rate everywhere, that space and time, the length of the meter and duration
of the second are defined even in the absence of energy, a kind of stuff the properties
of which then shouldn’t be related to whatever it may come to contain so shouldn’t be
curved by energy, to the properties of the particles it is to accommodate which is at
odds with the UP according to which space consists of ‘matter fields, whose quanta are
fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g.,
photons and gluons).’ 1
The picture BBC sketches of the universe, a list of the ingredients visible and invisible
kinds of matter, of attractive and repulsive kinds of energy it should contain in what
amounts at what times to fit observations reads as the recipe of a witch brewing some
magical concoction. As according to BBC the universe could have been different, it
cannot be understood even in principle why it is as it is, why bother?
It is curious how cosmologists, in speaking about its properties and state, as if it is an
ordinary object which only for practical difficulties cannot be observed from without,
can describe the universe from the point of view of its creator without being aware of
doing so, that despite finetuning problems nobody finds it suspicious that nothing in
the entire big bang scenario comes naturally, the sequence of events, of an expansion
the rate of which varies at will, is preordained to change at future times at the big
bang or which keeps being adjusted by some outside interference yet omits to address
the question of the origin of the energy created at the big bang, violating sacrosanct
conservation laws or how the particles to be created knew what properties to pop up
with or how, how it can have a beginning if it always could create itself: that nobody
wonders whether big bang cosmology may be a prime example of wishful thinking
instead of science.
The abundance of light elementsTHE OBSERVED RELATIVE abundances of light elements are invoked as evidence for the
big bang: their production rates critically depend on the baryonphoton ratio the value
of which depends on the surplus of matter over antimatter in the early universe.2
Clearly, if the Nix law forbids the universe to have any particular property as a whole, it
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeropoint_energy (7122019)2
Numerical coincidences and ‘tuning’ in cosmology (2004) Martin J. Rees
https://arxiv.org/ftp/astroph/papers/0401/0401424.pdf p. 3
113
cannot contain more matter than antimatter so there is no such surplus to determine
the value of the baryonphoton ratio, then it cannot predict the observed abundances.
Though the formation of the light elements in a BBU may require temperatures and
pressures exceeding those in stars; if when a SCU only exists as seen from within so
cannot be in any single evolutionary phase as a whole, the universe of any observer
always contains objects in all possible phases of their evolution, then that includes the
phase in which the light elements are formed, so if the transmission of the CMB is
instant, then he observes their formation and emission of the CMB as it happens.
If the properties of particles cannot causally precede those of the stars and galaxies
they form nor the other way around, if particles only acquire properties, evolve to
elementary particles, to protons and neutrons which combine to atomic nuclei as they
contract to stars and galaxies, then the observed abundances must be the result of this
evolution.1 If the virtual particles of empty space indeed are the interference products
of the real particles of stars and galaxies but the real particles similarly cannot causally
precede the virtual particles nor vice versa, then we might as well say that the virtual
particles are the tentative precursors of the real, elementary particles they eventually
will evolve to, that their properties evolve, become less indefinite as their energy
increases as they contract to stars and galaxies.
While the formation of light elements in BBC is supposed to require the hot, dense
conditions shortly after the big bang to overcome the electric repulsion between
protons so we can, knowing their properties, calculate in what ratio the light elements
will be formed in what conditions; if when in a SCU the energy increase of particles,
their evolution to elementary particles proceeds more or less gradual, the same goes
for the relative magnitudes of any kind of charge which contributes to their energy,
then it is conceivable that the electric and color charge of the particles which are in the
process of evolving to quarks in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution is weaker and with
it their attraction due to their color charge and the electric repulsion between the
protons they form, it may take less extreme conditions to start the tentative trial and
error selection of the properties of elementary particles, the formation of light and
other elements. That is, if when quarks don’t occur as independent particles but only
appear in duplets and triplets, we can call them particles.
The question then, is whether, instead of, as in BBC where light elements are formed
within a short time interval shortly after the big bang in extreme conditions, we can say
that if clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a slower pace particles to oscillate at a
1 “The energy released in the synthesis of cosmic 4He from hydrogen is almost exactly equal to the energy
contained in the cosmic microwave background radiation. This result strongly suggests that the 4He was
produced by hydrogen burning in stars and not in the early stages of a big bang. In addition, we show that
there are good arguments for believing that the other light isotopes, D, 3He, 6Li, 7Li, 9Be, 10B, and 11B, were
also synthesized in processes involving stars. By combining these results with the earlier, much more
detailed work of Burbidge et al. and of Cameron, we can finally conclude that all of the chemical elements
were synthesized from hydrogen in stars over a time of about 1011 yr.” … “The hot big bang cosmological
model is not able to predict the temperature (cf. Turner 1993). But what is remarkable about the result
that we have described here is that the energy density of the observed blackbody radiation is extremely
close to the energy density expected from the production of helium from hydrogen burning. We showed
earlier that this energy is 4.5 × 10 13 erg cm3, and when this energy is thermalized, the temperature turns
out to be T = 2.76 K. While the value of the baryonic density in galaxies and their environs is not known
with anything like the precision with which the blackbody temperature is measured, it is clearly not very
different from ρ = 3 1031 g cm3 (H0 = 60 km s1 Mpc1, and dark/luminous matter ratio ≈ 10) and, of
course, the calculated temperature is only proportional to ρ = 1/4.”
The Origin of Helium and Other elements Burbidge G. and Hoyle F. The Astrophysical Journal, 509:L1L3,
1998 December 10 (Turner, M. 1993, Science, 262, 861)
114
lower frequency as they are more distant, we observe their evolution to elementary
particles, their combination to light elements proceed at a much slower pace i.e., at a
much lower temperature and pressure over a much longer time, somewhat like how,
given enough time, quantum tunneling enables particles to cross energy barriers they
cannot cross classically.
Another question is if (and when) quarks must have a nonzero ‘starter’ rest mass, an
energy which is enhanced, multiplied by their motion, what its origin is if we reject the
Higgs ‘explanation’ quote marks as it doesn’t explain anything as long as the origin of
the mass of the Higgs particle is a mystery. If in a SCU the mass of a particle cannot
causally precede gravity, if it has no fundamental boundary separating its energy from
(its effect upon) space, if it is energy which turns an abstract space into a real, physical
spacetime, if the particle is a modulation in and of spacetime, then it is it is conceivable
that it acquires its rest mass,1 its properties by interacting with all objects within its IH.
Whereas in a BBU where quark properties causally precede those of baryons, atomic
nuclei, of stars and galaxies; quark properties in a SCU are cause and effect their inter
actions with all objects within their IH so would cease to exist if we could cut off their
energy exchange: that its rest mass (if it makes sense to speak about its rest mass if it
cannot be at rest and has no autonomous existence) isn’t a privately owned, mortgage
free, fixed quantity, something which, once acquired, doesn’t require any effort of the
particle, but a dynamic quantity, something it only conserves as long as it keeps
interacting, that ‘to be’ is not a static state, a noun, but a verb.
The distribution of quasars and the metallicity of starsTHE OBSERVATION THAT the metallicity of stars and nebulae is lower as they are older
and quasars were much more common in the early universe than they are today that
they only are found at large distances seems to constitute evidence for a big bang.
Wikipedia:
A quasar .. is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN) in which a supermassive
black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is
surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk. As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole,
energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across
the electromagnetic spectrum.2 []… the conditions for the formation of luminous AGN
were more common in the early universe, such as a much higher availability of cold gas
near the centre of galaxies than at present. It also implies that many objects that were
once luminous quasars are now much less luminous, or entirely quiescent.3
The observation that quasars only are found at large distances disqualifies a steady
state universe where, as matter keeps being created everywhere, we should find
galaxies in all phases of their evolution including quasars at all distances.
If particles in a SCU only can contract to clusters (and clusters of clusters) if they do so
everywhere, in concert and time is observed to pass at a slower pace at larger
distances, then we observe galaxies not as they were at an earlier moment in cosmic
time, in a more distant past, in the past, but as they are when we look at them, in an
‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are more distant, in what only to us is the
present. That quasar activity stops as the availability of cold gas drops below some
level doesn’t necessarily mean that they were formed in the past. If due to the
continuing selfcreation of energy in galaxies their appearance, properties, processes,
1 If it makes sense to speak about its rest mass if it cannot be at rest and has no autonomous existence.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar (142020) https://arxiv.org/pdf/astroph/9611163.pdf (2222020)3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus#Cosmological_uses_and_evolution (2222020)
115
composition and state changes in time and with it the rate at which matter is created,
then so may the conditions in (and the time during) which quasars can form.
Evolution of galaxies and the large scale structure of spaceIt is because concepts like cosmic time and the energy density of the universe define
energy, space and time as unrelated quantities why a big bang is expected to produce
an inhomogeneous distribution of matter, why there is a horizon and flatness problem.
The observed flatness, CMB isotropy and homogeneity then is incomprehensible and
only can be ‘explained’ away if we resort to magic: by conjuring up an inflation which
isn’t only artificial, farfetched, contrived as it cannot be explained from first principle
why and when it happens and at what rate, but is chosen to fit observations, so it isn’t
surprising that inflation proves to be even more unlikely1 than the observation it was
invented to explain away, that the universe accidentally is flat and has an isotropic
CMB. If anything, the observed isotropy of the CMB and largescale homogeneity of the
universe constitute evidence against the big bang hypothesis.
THOUGH THE QUESTION whether if a SCU has no external reality so doesn’t live in a
time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time inside of it, time must
be observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance, this means that the universe
somehow expands is still unresolved; it certainly isn’t like a BBU where going back in
time all stuff ends up in a point.
If in a SCU it is localized energy which makes positions at different distances physically
different, distinguishable so the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime, then
this reminds of the developing process of a photo in a darkroom where increasingly
more and sharper details become visible as it develops rather than an increase of the
distance between the objects depicted in it of the distance between the readymade
particles at the big bang or between galaxy clusters so going back in time all points in
spacetime become more identical physically as the energy of particles, stars and
galaxies decreases until it is void of energy and space and time cease to exist.
If localized energy, the gravitational field it is the source, the manifestation of is an
area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as seen from outside the field, if the increase of the
energy of objects is accompanied by the increase not of their distance in space but of
their spacetime distance as measured inside their gravitational field, from the mass
center of one object to that of the other, then this increase isn’t an expansion of space
in time. Only in a universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, where
time passes at the same pace everywhere can we speak about the expansion of space
in time, of the increase of the distance in space between objects, if we can measure
their locations in the same time slice, at the same moment in cosmic time.
While space in a BBU expands at the same rate everywhere at the same time so we
may imagine to look at the universe from without, ‘watch’ the spherical shell universe
expand at the same rate everywhere at the same time; as a SCU only exists as seen
from within so cannot be in any single, particular state as a whole, the universe of any
observer always contains objects in all phases of their evolution objects he doesn’t see
as they were at an earlier moment in cosmic time as they are more distant, in the past,
but as they are at present, in what only to him is the present, here we only can speak
about the spacetime distance between objects, not about the distance in space
between them at some moment in cosmic time as there is no such thing in a SCU.
1 See, for example, A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology (1999) Earman J. & Mosterin J. in Philosophy
of Science, vol. 66, no. 1, 1999, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/188736
116
Though the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime so a gravitational field is an
area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, most of it is localized near the mass center of objects as
the observed pace of clocks and length of rods only varies substantially near their mass
center.1 If given the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself, particles
evolve to everhigher energies to eventually end up in the black hole at the center of
their galaxy and add to its mass, then the increase of the mass of the hole may take
more time as it is heavier if the position of its mass center then is situated at a larger
spacetime distance from the observer, she observes its mass increase at an increasingly
slower pace as the hole is heavier. If when a greater mass, a stronger gravitational field
of the hole constitutes a greater spacetime distance between its mass center, the point
its energy acts from and the observer, he observes time to pass at a slower pace at its
mass center, then we might say that its mass recedes in space and postpones in time
its expression as gravity so in this sense we can say that spacetime expands in a SCU.
Though spacetime only can expand, or rather, create itself if time passes suggesting
that space and time are unrelated quantities; this they only are in a universe where
time always passes at the same pace in empty space, not in a universe where time is
observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance, to pass at an infinitesimal pace
at the rim of the interaction horizon of any observer anywhere.
If as seen from afar the hole, its gravitational field is an area of ‘contracted’ spacetime
which nearer to its center is a more private spacetime, a spacetime which only unfolds
to a test particle penetrating it, a penetration which by an distant observer is observed
to proceed at a pace which is slower as the hole is heavier and the particle is nearer to
its mass center, if the hole’s field slows down the decent of the particle into the hole,
then it is as if the mass of the hole expresses itself more locally, that what happens in
its vicinity is of less import to the distant observer, that the universes of the observer
and the test particle (and hole) coincide, overlap less as they are farther apart.
TO RECAPITULATE, THE allimportant question is whether or not we may imagine to
look at the universe from the outside: whether if by definition there is nothing outside
of it relative to which it can be said to have properties, to interact with, to express its
existence, the universe can have certain properties, be in some particular state as a
whole as seen from within as well as ‘seen’ from the outside a question which
contains its own answer yes since to ask it presupposes that it is the same time
everywhere, that the universe lives in a spacetime space and time continuum not of its
own making, that it has an external, if for practical reasons, unobservable reality.
The problem is that if when the universe has certain properties, be in some particular
state as a whole, it could have been different, it cannot be understood even in principle
why it is as it is, how it can create itself, have a beginning if when it can create itself, it
always could, a beginning which, as it presumes a previous state in which it didn’t yet
exist, implies that time already passes even before the big bang, outside the universe.
Another problem is that in a universe where particles, particle properties only are the
cause of interactions, everything which is ever to happen is preordained to happen as
and when it does, meaning that the universe has been created by some creator.
1 “Curvature of spacetime is a relativistic manifestation of the existence of mass. Such curvature is
extremely weak and difficult to measure. For this reason, curvature was not discovered until after it was
predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions (142020)
117
As a selfcreating universe only exists as seen from within, as it contains, produces all
energy, space and time inside of it, as the creation of energy is the creation of space
time so there is no universewide now, time cannot be observed to pass at the same
pace at all distances then past, present and future must be relative, local notions.
While much remains unexplained in this exploratory study of how the universe might
go about creating itself, about its general mechanics, how it can create itself yet have
no beginning, no definite age and how this alters our notion of space and time, how it
can keep creating itself out of nothing without violating any conservation law; if, as
discussed, the universe only can have a beginning if it has been created by some
outside intervention, a BBU doesn’t even satisfy the definition of what a universe is.
While it is good practice in physics to let observations decide whether some theory
might be valid; as the universe by definition cannot have particular properties nor be in
any particular state as a whole, as it only exists as seen from within so no objective
statement can be made about its properties and state, a different approach is needed.
Though relationalism points in the right direction, its followers have yet to realize that
BBC causality is an unsurmountable obstruction to their case: while they rightfully
claim that space and time distances between bodies and durations of events are
relative so must be specified not relative to Newton’s absolute space and time but
relative to each other, they still consider the rest energy of particles to be an absolute
quantity, something which BFPD can be measured even from without the universe.
The problem of big bang cosmology is that it tries to explain causally that the universe
is caused into existence, implying a creator outside of it what only can be understood
rationally: it is because we believe that the universe has a beginning, a definite age,
that it lives in a time continuum not of its own making why we came to interpret the
constant of nature called ‘the speed of light’ as a velocity instead of the property of
spacetime it is in a selfcreating universe or that because we assume that light moves
through space in time we had to believe that the universe has a beginning so has been
created by some outside intervention.
ABBREVIATIONS
BBC big bang cosmology
BFPD but for practical difficulties
BBU big bang universe
CM classical mechanics
GR or GRT general relativity theory
GTD gravitational time dilation
IH interaction horizon
OH observation horizon = interaction horizon
QCD quantum chromodynamics
QED quantum electrodynamics
QG quantum gravity
QLG quantum loop gravity
QM quantum mechanics
SCU selfcreating universe
SR or SRT special relativity theory
SSU steady state universe
ST string theory
SUSY supersymmetric
UP uncertainty principle
top related