Quantumgravity

Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe

This study investigates how a universe can create itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention, the mechanics of which enables us to finally understand why quantum mechanics works and how it can be reconciled with relativity theory.

All mass is interaction

Richard Feynman

Science progresses funeral by funeral.

Max Planck

The Nix Law

This study is based on two axioms or physical laws:

The first law is the conservation law which, essentially, says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing –let´s call this the Nix law.

According to this law, in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, the total of everything inside of it, including space and time, somehow has to cancel, to remain nil. So if we may compare elementary particles to different kinds of numbers, positive and negative numbers of different kinds, then in a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) they must add to zero.

Though it may seem strange that a Self-Creating Universe then doesn’t exist, has no physical reality as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, so to say, but only exist as seen from within, as it is not your ordinary, everyday object, we shouldn’t treat it as such. This study tells the sad story of how present physics, to its own detriment, does treat it as such.

Since the development of reason, of science began with the discovery of causality –that that seeds sowed, eventually may yield food, that clouds precede rain but rain never precedes clouds– it was obvious to assume that our world, our universe also must have been caused, created by some Creator outside of, that it has a beginning.

As God has no place in physics, one has traded one myth, that God created the universe for another myth, the Big Bang tale, as if replacing a perpetrator –God– by some anonymous, spontaneous, i.e., a supposedly uncaused event –Bang – makes the idea scientifically sound.

Not so: on closer examination the Big Bang idea proves to be just as naïve and religious a tale as the preceding, genesis version of events. However understandable it is that we came to assume that the universe has a beginning, it is actually the very worst idea mankind ever came up with: this study is the account of how completely the Big Bang idea blocked any progress in physics.

As will be discussed in detail, the Big Bang idea is based on two misconceptions: the idea that we can ignore the Nix law without completely messing up physics to the pigsty of truths, half-truths and contradictions it is today, and the idea that the speed of light refers to the velocity light moves at instead of to the property of spacetime it actually is –which is something else entirely, though, as will become clear, it certainly, and obviously so, is a limit to the velocity massive objects can move at.

All fundamental problems of present physics arise out of the fallacy of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) that it is legitimate, scientifically, to consider the universe as an ordinary object which, But For Practical Difficulties (BFPD) can be observed from the outside, that it treats the universe as an object which has particular properties as a whole, as an object which evolves, as a whole, in time –which comes down to stating that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making.

In contrast, a Self-Creating Universe is that unique ‘thing’ which only exists as seen from within, to an inside observer who (the particles of his body) is (are) part of the sum which is to remain nil: as it has no reality as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, it doesn’t make any sense to speak about the evolutionary state the universe is in as a whole, about its properties.

As this study offers a completely different take on things than the naïve picture BBC sketches, I had to (try to) dream up an alternative scenario, so this study also is an exploration into how a universe may go about creating itself, as seen from the point of view of an inside observer. Since particles by mutually interacting exchange information, in this text particles also appear as observers.

We can only speak about the existence of an object if there is something with respect to which it exists, interacts with: if and when there is an environment in which its properties can be are expressed.

Like all electric charges in the universe have to add to a zero net charge, all kinds of properties somehow must cancel, so its total net energy content similarly must be zero, just like the sum of all debts and credits on Earth by definition always is zero. Energy, then, must be an ambivalent quantity, neither positive nor negative or both: indeed, if two photons can annihilate without liberating any energy, then the energy of a photon in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next –so it is its own antiparticle: if mass is a form of energy, then the same should hold for massive particles –the difference being that when two massive particles annihilate, there is energy liberated.

The second ‘law’ states that in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, particles and particle properties obviously must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, as much the effect as the cause of the forces between them.

Whereas in Classical Mechanics (CM) a particle property is defined as a quantity which is independent of its behavior, only the cause of its interactions, in Quantum Mechanics (QM), in a SCU particle properties are both cause and effect of their interactions.

This means that we cannot, at the most fundamental level, understand a SCU in terms of cause and effect: though a universe which has no cause itself, cannot be understood causally, it can be perfectly understood rationally.

Though causality is thought to be the sine qua non of reason, of science, on closer examination causality proves to be worse than useless.

The flaw of causality is that if we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or ends at some primordial cause, which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything. If any causal reasoning must start from some primordial cause which by definition cannot be understood but only can be taken for a fact by an act of faith, then causality is an essentially religious concept.

Indeed: by imagining to look from outside the universe in, by looking over God’s shoulders at His creation, by assuming that the universe is an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, we in fact say that there is something outside of it with respect to which it has such properties, with respect to which it evolves, that it lives in a realm not of its own making.

Since a SCU doesn’t exist as ‘seen from without, it has no such problems: whereas in a Big Bang Universe (BBU) objects have a reality to an imaginary outside observer, as in a SCU particles must create themselves, one another, they only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact, communicate their existence. If, as will be discussed, particles by interacting express and at the same time preserve each other’s properties, each other’s existence, and in a SCU it doesn’t even make sense to ask which of two interacting particles caused the other to exist so one particle does not causally precede the other, then this must mean that their communication is instantaneous.

This, in turn, means that whereas in a BBU, living in a time continuum not of its own making, it is the same cosmic time (the time passed since the bang) everywhere so here it takes light time to move from point in space to the other, in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere.

If a SCU only exists as seen from within, if, in contrast to a BBU, it contains and produces all time within, then in a SCU, clocks must be observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant. As a result, only in a SCU a space distance is a time distance, so here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all –so the speed of light c doesn’t refer to a velocity but a property of spacetime: it is a number which says how many km space distance corresponds to 1 second time distance.

In a universe where c refers to the velocity of light, we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past: as in a BBU it is the same cosmic time (the time passed since the big bang) everywhere, here the ‘speed’ of light necessarily is a velocity so looking at larger distances in a BBU, we look farther back into the past.

Perhaps the most important and undisputed observational evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) which is thought to have been emitted when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old.

Since in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, as in this universe a space distance is a time distance, here c is just a number which says how many kilometers space distance correspond to one second time distance. In a SCU we therefore do not see a distant galaxy as it was in the past, but as it is at present, to us, so here the CMBR isn’t the fossil radiation it is in a BBU, but is produced as we speak –the origin of which will be discussed in the evolution chapter.

Because this conclusion so totally contradicts the present belief that the speed of light does refer to the velocity of light –as if light, a photon is a classical, a causal object instead of the quantum phenomenon it is, this is one of the main subjects of this study, so I’ll argue time and time again that it is not a velocity but a property of spacetime, approach it from different angles and elaborate on the consequences as it puts things in a completely different light.

If the many theories which are founded on the widespread but naïve belief that we live in a Big Bang Universe give a black-and-white picture of the universe, the Self-Creating Universe, though being its spitting image, at the same time looks fundamentally different, just like the world looks totally different in color.

Since so many theories have been based upon this single misconception are in the same manner ‘skewed’, together they appear to sketch a pretty consistent picture of the evolution of the universe so the assumptions, the foundations the edifice BBC is based upon tend to evade scrutiny, to remain undisputed. As this study aims to show, it also is the source of some pretty fundamental contradictions, of pseudo problems which by definition cannot be solved but only vanish when we find a way of looking at, thinking about things which better fits the nature of what it is we wish to understand.

The fact that we have a birthdate does not mean that everything must have a beginning: a universe only can have a beginning if there’s something with respect to which it starts to exist. If according to the Nix law a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole, as ‘seen’ from the outside, then it obviously cannot have a beginning, as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without.

In regarding the universe as an object which BFPD can be observed from without, which has particular properties as a whole, which evolves in time, BBC implicitly states that it has been created by some outside interference, so has less to do with science, physics than with religion, with metaphysics. As equations correctly are applied to the false assumptions of BBC lead to false conclusions, they’ll contradict observations so will breed new theories, like the Cosmic Inflation (CI) scheme, to patch its many flaws –and are deeply flawed themselves.

Embarrassingly, an overwhelming majority of cosmologists do believe that the universe was created at the mythical Big Bang, that it is scientifically legitimate to imagine to look at the universe from the outside, as if looking over God’s shoulders at His creation.

Unfortunately we cannot, even in principle, dream up an experiment to determine whether c must be interpreted as a velocity of light or as a property of spacetime: the difference is as subtle as it is crucial in understanding the universe. The fact that some, if not all, fundamental problems and inconsistencies of present physics disappear if we interpret c as a property of spacetime should give pause for thought, enough so to reconsider some basic ideas which, though they seem too self-evident to suspect, may have passed their shelf life.

In imagining to look at the universe from without, in treating it as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, BBC grants inside objects and events an absolute, ‘Über Universal’ kind of reality: as if there is an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations.

Indeed, created by Some Outside Intervention –God or the Big Bang, take your pick– its nature should not be affected by our observations, particle properties by their interactions. In this, classical view, particles, particle properties are thought to causally precede their effects, their interactions; mass to causally precede gravity.

Whereas physicists at present, by imagining to look from outside the universe in, grant the particles they assume it to contain an Über-Universal kind of reality, consider them to be only for the cause of events,, since in a SCU particles create themselves, each other, here they exist only to each other, if, as far and for as long as they interact so they have no reality to some imaginary physicist outside the universe. Since in a SCU particles and the objects they form exist only with respect to each other if and for as long as they interact, here objects have a relative existence –so their observed properties do depend on the observer or interactor.

It is the essentially religious idea of CM and BBC that there is an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations which tricks us into believing that we can speak about things like the past, the present and the future, into believing that it makes sense to imagine to look over God’s shoulders at His creation, as if it is an object which lives in a space and time realm not of its own making.

Though causality may be useful in our macroscopic world, in everyday life –and I will keep using words like ‘since’ and ‘because’– macroscopic objects may follow a different logic, a different mechanics than their component particles do, at quantum level. Like the melody played on a piano has nothing to do with the material of the piano, the causality which seems to rule macroscopic events does not exclude non-causality at quantum level: only if the piano itself isn’t affected by the melodies played on it, can we have music.

This study charts the stupendous damage causality, and, particularly, the Big Bang tale has wrought upon physics: it will show why String Theory (ST), invented to try to unify the different forces of nature, in fact is instrumental in preserving the prejudices, the misconceptions preventing such unification.

Indeed, in a universe where particles, particle properties are as much the cause as the effect of forces between them, a force cannot, of its own, be either attractive or repulsive, always, no matter that like charges do repulse and opposite charges do attract.

Though the electric force between charged particles is said to be about 10⁴⁰ times stronger than gravity between them; according to Newton’s the action = reaction law a force can never be stronger or weaker than the counterforce it encounters or is able to evoke. If it is their mass, their inertia which provides this counter force, always as strong as the electric force between them, then this already suggest mass and charge are not like two different, independent kinds of batteries, one filled with mass and the other with electric charge, one powering gravitational forces and the other electric forces.

To be clear, it certainly is not the familiar weak gravitational force which is responsible for this counter force: as will be discussed exhaustively, weak gravity is the expression of the tendency, the property of mass in a Self-Creating Universe to increase, to keep creating itself, and ultimately can be shown to power all seemingly different forces.

Since in a BBU the mass of objects is thought to be only the cause of forces, here mass is a constant, unchangeable quantity: though it can be converted into energy, is a form of energy, only in a BBU energy is something which cannot be created nor destroyed –except, of course, at the Big Bang itself. The fact that the bang itself violates this law, that the laws of nature are assumed to be invalid or inoperative at the bang, should, as will be argued, suffice to discredit the entire idea.

Though the study is aimed at professional physicists and to readers which have a knowledge of physics at pre-university level (which is why I have added many Wikipedia links), as I just wanted to get a rough idea as to how a universe might co about creating itself, whether it even can be understood rationally, I have tried to identify some general principles and mechanisms without quantifying things in equations. Though this certainly needs to be done to elevate this narrative to science, I suspect that physics already is in the possession of most of the relevant equations, though this study may change the interpretation of some equations and even help to simplify them.

Refusing to believe in a Creator, trying to understand its creation rationally –as opposed to causally, I had to develop an alternative scenario, figure out why it must be impossible for the universe to not exist, a scenario which should fit observations and, if possible, avoid the contradictions of present physics.

As the study is a work in progress, as pieces of the puzzle are still falling into place, I tend to elaborate on subjects in one chapter which are only introduced and argued properly later in the text, so the sequence sometimes gets mixed up. As new insights develop when working on one part, I cannot at once correct or adjust related parts in the text, making it harder for the reader to follow, flaws for which I apologize but which I cannot remedy on short notice. Though this text is in dire need of an editor, I hope that the ideas are worthwhile enough to put up with its many flaws.

As this study may benefit from critique, I’d appreciate it very much if readers take the trouble to point out errors, inconsistencies and experimental evidence which may contradict (or confirm) my propositions, so comments and questions are welcome at:

anton@quantumgravity.nl

Anton Biermans, Eindhoven

Notes

Causality

Causality, to even appear to make sense, requires that we can determine in an absolute sense what precedes what –which only would be possible if we could from outside the universe observe what happens inside of it: if the universe would live in a time realm not of its own making.

Whereas a BBU lives in a time continuum not of its own making, as SCU doesn’t even exist as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without so doesn’t live in time. Whereas in a BBU it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere so here a space distance is not a time distance, since a SCU produces and contains all time within, here a space distance is a time distance. As in a BBU it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, here it takes a photon a finite time to cross a distance, so here an observer does see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past. In contrast, in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere so here the photon bridges any space distance in no time at all: as in a SCU different space positions have different time coordinates (the values of which are observer-dependent), here it doesn’t even make sense to try to determine where it is earlier and later in an absolute sense: what is cause of what.

Though the ‘speed’ of light certainly is a limit to the velocity massive objects can move at, as will be discussed time and time again throughout this study, the ‘speed’ of light isn’t so much a velocity but refers to a property of spacetime.

As a consequence, the concept of cosmic time which is so important in BBC and General Relativity theory (GR), is unscientific: as will be discussed shortly, BBC is deeply flawed for more than one reason.

Though according to the nix law what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, the reader may say that for objects to exist, events to happen, it doesn’t matter whether or not there is something outside of it with respect to which they can exist and happen. One answer is that things and events only have reality to an inside observer who himself (the particles of his body) is part of the sum which is to remain nil: just like the sum of all credits and debts in the world always is zero doesn’t mean that there’s no money.

If in a SCU particles, particle properties are both the product and source of their interactions, if by interacting they exchange information about their properties, state and motion, and, as will be discussed exhaustively, this information deteriorates, decreases, becomes vaguer, less definite as they are farther apart. The farther apart they are, the vaguer the information they exchange, the more inextricably the info becomes mixed up with information from other sources, so if the info of the separate sources no longer can be reconstructed by the other particle, then the original information is irretrievably lost. If the same holds for the visible, macroscopic objects they form, if from a large enough distance, to an observer or observing particle in a remote galaxy the effects of the existence on Earth of the pyramids, say, cannot be distinguished from those of their non-existence, then to that observer our pyramids have no reality. (As particles exchange information by interacting, in this text particles appear as observers as carriers and readers of information.)

Since in BBC all particles have been created, provided with properties at or shortly into the big bang, since in BBC, in CM particles only are the cause of events so here their properties don’t depend on their interactions, they –and the macroscopic objects they form– are thought of as objects which BFPD can be observed even from without the universe. In contrast, as in a SCU particles have reality, exist to each other only if as long as they interact, here the universe or Interaction Horizon (IH) of particles is limited, the observed properties of objects are relative, observer/interactor-dependent.

In thinking about the universe as an object which has properties as a whole, by imagining to look from the outside, over God’s shoulders at His creation, physicists ascribe particles a divine, interaction-independent existence –and nevertheless, absurdly, hope to explain the origin of mass, of the universe itself.

Like people in Galilei’s time may have felt upset on learning that the Earth wasn't, after all, the center of the universe, that we aren’t at the center of Gods attention, the idea that there’s nothing outside the universe with respect to which we exist ourselves may be too upsetting to abandon our ‘look-over-God’s-shoulders-at-His-creation’ attitude.

It’s quite simple: either we live in a universe created by some outside intervention, in which case we may imagine to look at it from the outside and we can bury all hope to ever understand it, or we live in a SCU which only can be understood from within.

Since the creation of an infinite amount of matter and energy cannot be completed within a finite time, the amount created at the Big Bang–if we are to speak of a bang –must be finite. This of course begs the question as to who or what determined this quantity, with respect to what this precise quantity can matter. However, as there’s no standard of energy, of length and time outside the universe to compare, to quantify inside quantities with, it doesn’t even make sense to ask how much it contains –in which case it also cannot make sense to try to quantify its content as seen from within, so we surely must be asking the wrong question.

A related question in BBC is the ultimate fate of the universe, whether the rest energy particles were created with is related to the kinetic energy they got at the bang, the initial velocity with which they move apart: whether the mass density of the universe is great enough for gravity between galaxies to slow down their receding motion so the universe eventually will stop to expand and start to contract, whether the expansion will slow down in time without ever stopping, or whether it will keep expanding forever, that is, whether we live in a closed, a flat or an open universe. Since the discovery of dark energy, it appears that the expansion of the universe accelerates so it would be an open universe

However, if we cannot ask how much matter and energy the universe contains, then can it make sense to ask how large it is, as seen either from the inside or outside? If to be able to speak about its mass or energy density, the quantity of mass or energy must be independent from space, if mass and space are independent quantities, have different properties, then this seems to contradict GR according to which mass curves space. Space and mass only are independent quantities if the mass of objects only is the cause of forces so its magnitude is independent of their distance.

In CM and BBC the mass of particles is thought of as an absolute, privately owned quantity, an unchangeable quantity, i.e., a source of finite strength which –magically– can generate an infinite force between them at infinitesimal distances without changing itself, so here it only is the force between them which depends on their distance. As in a SCU their mass is both cause and effect of the force between them, if a particle has no surface separating some content, mass, from its effects, its environment, here we cannot really distinguish between a property and the force it is associated with, so instead of saying that only the force between particles varies, as in CM, here we can as well say that the mass one particle has according to the other depends on their distance so is a relative quantity.

Though a particle property is defined to be independent from its behavior –which is to say, to be the cause of its behavior so a measurement of its mass always gives the same value, this doesn’t mean that a neutron in a neutron star, say, has the same mass as it has on Earth. As in a neutron star the forces on a neutron are much stronger than they are on a free neutron on Earth, in a SCU we can say that its mass in the neutron star is much greater than it is on Earth, that it is a different particle within the star.

The advantage of considering mass of an object to only be the cause of interactions, as a constant, interaction-independent quantity, is that we don’t have to specify with respect to what it has that mass: if its expression as a force on an observing particle depends on their distance and relative motion, then the ‘with respect to’ already is accounted for in their distance and velocity. However, in regarding the mass of a particle as being only the cause of forces, we implicitly say that it has a surface separating some content, mass, from its effects, from space, so by assuming that mass causes space to curve, we turn space into something which exist even before or in the absence of matter, as if it has (additional?) properties unrelated to mass.

As to the flaws of BBC, going back in time, the energy density must have been infinite at the bang, so as according to GR, energy is a source of gravity, the force keeping all energy at one point before it is to burst forth in a bang would be infinite, as would be the gravitational time dilation, so it would take an infinite time to get up to speed, i.e., be impossible to happen at all. If the bang happens nevertheless, then this must mean that the laws of physics aren’t valid at the bang itself –in which case BBC, based on such laws, never will be able to explain the why of the bang, the mechanics of creation even in principle.

Whereas in BBC particles were provided with a certain quantity of mass at their creation, are assumed to keep existing even if they wouldn’t interact, as objects which BFPD can be observed even from without the universe, in a SCU particles have no such absolute reality. If in a SCU the mass of particles is both product and source of their interactions, of the force between them, and this force increases as their distance decreases, then in this universe their mass increases as they contract, is created as they do –a process the mechanics of which will be discussed in some detail elsewhere. So whereas in BBC the (rest) energy of particles causally precedes their interactions, in a SCU, due to gravity, their energy tends to evolves to ever-higher values –keeping in mind that in a SCU the rest energy of an object is a relative quantity, depending on the mass, motion and distance of the observing particle.

As forces on a particle can be greater as they are more exactly equal from all directions, and they can be more precisely equal as it sits in a smaller area, as its position is less indefinite relative to all particles it interacts with, owes its mass to, in a SCU mass preferably is created in equilibrium, automatically leading to a homogenous mass distribution. In contrast, as in a BBU particles have been created with a certain mass, any inhomogeneity in their distribution tends to amplify itself, this leads to an inhomogeneous mass distribution so a BBU would be an instable universe. As the mechanics of the big bang doesn’t produce the ‘observed’ homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, BBC had to invent an artificial cosmic inflation scheme to achieve the same, a scenario which also is thought to take care of the so-called horizon problem and flatness problem.

Since particles in a SCU create, cause one another, here things explain each other in a circular way, so 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 by the foregoing reasoning –that is, if our reasoning is sound and our assumptions valid..

What’s more, if when particles create, cause one another so particle A sees particle B appear within its interaction horizon at the same time B sees A pop up within B‘s horizon so we cannot ask which particle was created first, that is, if in a SCU it doesn’t make sense to ask what is cause of what, then the ‘speed’ of light c cannot be a (finite) velocity but must be a property of spacetime, a number which says how many kilometers space distance correspond to one second time distance. Since you cannot bridge a space distance within a shorter time than the time distance it corresponds to, c obviously is a limit to the velocity massive objects can move at.

Only if we could, from outside the universe, objectively determine what precedes what, i.e., in an absolute sense, what is cause of what, would light have to move at a finite velocity. In imagining to look at the universe from without, in regarding it as an object which evolves, as a whole, in time, in assuming that it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, that time passes at the same, constant pace everywhere (ignoring relativistic effects), BBC in fact states that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making. BBC therefore assumes that it is scientifically legitimate to imagine to follow a photon traveling from A to B, the universe growing older as it does, just like we can, from the Skylab, see a plane flying from Paris to Madrid and measure its velocity. What determines whether we must conceive of c as a (finite) velocity or a property of spacetime is whether its transmission can be analyzed in terms of cause and effect or not.

According to BBC, an imaginary outside observer who could observe inside events without the time delay due to the finite light ‘speed’, would always see all objects in about the same evolutionary phase everywhere: he would see the universe evolve in time, grow old as a whole, as if the pace of inside events is determined, powered by something outside of it, independent of such events.

If he is to observe all galaxies in about the same phase, no matter how far apart they are, then the evolution of galaxies either is independent of their interactions –in which case their evolution would be preordained at the bang, fixed, encoded like DNA in the properties of the particles they are built out of, or the interactions, the exchange of energy between widely separated galaxies must be instantaneous. As BBC has to conceive of the ‘speed’ of light as a velocity, it cannot explain the observed isotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), a thermal equilibrium between widely separated regions of space, a problem known as the horizon problem. Another problem is the so-called flatness problem:

”In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for 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 10⁶² or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.

To explain the observed CMBR isotropy, the homogeneity of the universe, to save the big bang hypothesis, BBC had to invent an artificial, ad hoc ‘solution’, the so-called cosmic inflation hypothesis, which is supposed to resolve both the flatness and horizon problem –in contrast to a SCU which suffers no such problems.

In speaking about ‘initial conditions’, BBC clearly looks at the universe form an imaginary observation post outside of it, as if it is an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, as if mass and space are independent, objectively observable quantities, as if there are standards of length and weight outside of it we can use to quantify inside quantities and determine its mass density.

Since a SCU doesn’t exist as ‘seen’ from without, it doesn’t make any sense to speak about its mass density nor about initial conditions: if there is no school for aspirant universes, then a SCU must evolve in a trial-and-error process so what we observe must be that combination of particle species, properties, constants of nature and physical law that manages to survive and satisfies the Nix law.

To speak about initial conditions is to assume that its evolution is predetermined, that there has been a calculation before the bang as to what properties, laws and numbers would produce a viable universe, a calculation which is hard to perform as long as there’s no physical calculator to compute with.

In speaking about its initial conditions, BBC in fact states that the evolution of the universe is a predetermined, the consequence of which is that, once its initial conditions are set, known, it should be possible, in principle, to predict, calculate its future to the last detail. In this view fundamental particles are like tiny automatons, wind-up toys which, once winded, provided with properties at the bang, only can unwind in a prescribed manner, i.e., execute a preprogrammed behavior the outcome of which essentially is independent from what happens elsewhere, so a BBU is a gigantic automaton itself, following a predetermined course plotted by its Creator.

The crux of the matter is that in a universe where (cosmic) time passes everywhere at the same pace (ignoring relativistic effects), where a space distance does not correspond to a time distance, the speed of light necessarily must be conceived of as a (finite) velocity.

The concept of cosmic time, so important in BBC and GR, has no meaning whatsoever in a SCU: as a SCU contains and produces all time within, here a space distance is a time distance, so the ‘speed’ of light is not a velocity but a property of spacetime, a number which says how many kilometers distance in space correspond to one second time distance. In a SCU a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all: relativity theory says that according to the photon itself it arrives at B at the exact same time it departs at A. To the photon its arrival at A does not precede its departure at B so we cannot even ask which of them, A or B, causes the photon transmission: as to the photon there’s no distance in space nor time between A and B the transmission cannot be understood causally.

In contrast, as it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere in a BBU, A and B are only separated in space, not in time, so it takes a photon time to travel from A to B. If in CM, in BBC, particles are said to be separated in time, then that is not because they are, but because CM assumes information about A’s state and properties to take time to reach B. This is unlike a SCU where, since A and B, the properties they observe each other to have, are both (part of the) product and source of their interactions, all relevant info already is present at A and B even before they transmit a(n anti)photon, an information which is being updated faster as the frequency they exchange energy at is higher, i.e., as their distance is smaller. If the information two particles exchange is less definite as they are farther apart and is updated at a lower frequency, the we might indeed say that, in some sense, they see each other as they were in a more distant past as they are farther apart –however, as will be discussed, they do not see each other as they were in the past as they would in a BBU.

So whereas in a SCU we cannot, at the most fundamental level, distinguish cause from effect, properties from their expression so A sees B as it is at present, to A; as in a BBU B is thought to have properties independent of its interactions with A, here B has an a priory kind of reality, an existence which precedes its observation, its interactions.

If A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission which changes the state of both atoms (the state, position and motion of all particles within their interaction horizon), then A sees B change at the time it emits the photon, as A changes itself so sees a slightly changed world, whereas B sees A change at the time it absorbs the photon, as it changes itself and hence the world it observes.

That is, unless we believe that B, after absorbing the photon sends back a message to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note informing A that it can, as of this moment –the receipt of the note– start to see B in its new state. As, unlike a BBU, we cannot (imagine to) objectively determine from outside a SCU which of them changes first, A or B, as there is no cosmic clock we might use to determine what precedes what in an absolute sense, where it is earlier and where it is later, here both A and B are equally right about the time of the transmission –in which case the transmission must be instantaneous.

So whereas in a BBU the emission of the photon, its voyage and its absorption are three separate, independent events, in a SCU it is a single, indivisible event effectuating changes at two places at once –‘at once’ according to the photon, though they are separated in in space and time to a massive observer.

We can only speak about the position and velocity of a particle if it matters physically where it is and how it moves: if it interacts with the objects in the environment it travels through. In a SCU the speed of light therefore can be defined as that ‘velocity’ at which it no longer can express its properties, interact with the objects in the environment it travels through.

If, according to the objects in the environment the photon is supposed to travel through has no mass, no properties at all so doesn’t exist to them, then it makes no sense to ascribe the photon a position or velocity, just like those objects have no reality to the photon. Though we certainly can calculate when we may detect a photon where given the time a light source emits a photon, that doesn’t mean that we are allowed to conceive of the photon as a tiny bullet which moves from A to B. In other words, though the photon in carrying energy, effectively transports mass, it can only prevent its cargo to interact, to act as a source of gravity by keeping its position perfectly indefinite so gravity has no point from which to pull, or, what’s the same, by ‘freezing’ any such interactions in time. If to any particle moving at the ‘speed’ of light there is no distance in space nor time between A and B, then its ‘voyage’ must be instantaneous, meaning that it doesn’t even make sense to ask which of them is the cause of the transmission, A or B.

Since in a SCU A and B owe their properties to all other particles within their IH, all these particles participate in the photon transmission between A and B since it affects their own energy. According to the present interpretation of the path integral formulation), the photon ‘sniffs’ out all possible paths between A and B, as if it interacts with virtual particles on all possible paths, all of which affect the path it actually chooses –if it makes any sense to speak about the path of a particle which at the ‘speed’ of light cannot interact at all. In contrast, since A and B owe their properties, the state they are into all particles within their IH, the information about the environment the photon is thought to ‘sniff’ out already is present at both A and B, so here the photon doesn’t need to ‘probe’ to find its way.

For the photon to interact en route would require the existence of force-carrying particles moving between the photon and the objects in the environment it travels through, so would have to move even faster than the photon.

In CM it is a mystery why the speed of light is what it is and how the photon can keep its velocity constant: does it have some kind of GPS and cruise control on board?

It is because in a SCU the ‘speed’ of light isn’t a velocity but a property of spacetime why all observers, no matter their own motion, always find the same value for c, a value which is the result of an arbitrary choice of units of length and time.

To be able to speak about the velocity of a photon and measure it, CM imagines to follow the photon on its path from an observation post outside the universe: as this only makes sense if there is a yardstick and clock outside the universe, CM in fact states that the universe lives in a space and time continuum not of its own making –so it cannot explain why c has the value it has. CM, BBC and GR, in assuming that it is the same cosmic time everywhere, assumes that we can objectively determine the time sequence of events, where it is earlier and where it is later in an absolute sense, i.e., as ‘seen’ from outside the universe. In contrast, as in a SCU a space distance is a time distance, here the observed time sequence of events, where it is earlier and later, what precedes what is relative, observer-dependent.

The fundamental fallacy of CM is its assumption that there is an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations –an assumption which necessarily implies the universe to have been created by some outside intervention.

Because in BBC, all particles are thought to have been provided with properties at their creation, they have an autonomous, interaction-independent existence, so the information about the properties, state, position and motion of a particle is not present at the particles it is to interact with, so here the communication of this info must take time. In believing that particles, particle properties only are the cause of interactions, as if mass precedes gravity, CM in fact states that there exists an a priori reality which precedes its observation: that the universe has been created by some outside intervention. In contrast, as in particles in a SCU express and preserve each other’s properties by exchanging energy –the frequency, polarization and direction of which carry all relevant physical information about each other, then every particle at all times is informed in real time about its universe, about the state, position and motion of all particles within its IH.

Isaac Newton:

“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 from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matter a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”

“I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” Frank Wilczek

Though an instantaneous communication at a distance may appear too magical a trick to consider, if we want particles to express their mass as gravity, then we cannot have its carriers interact with, feel force from the particles they are transmitted between.

The belief that action at a distance is impossible is based on the assumption that it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, i.e., that the universe has been created by some outside intervention –in which case there would be a divine, a priori reality which precedes the observation thereof, so in this universe mass would causally precede gravity, gravitational interactions –which contradicts Feynman’s adage that ‘all mass is interaction’.

Whereas CM discards the point of view of the photon according to which its transmission is instantaneous as it contradicts the finite transmission time a massive observer measures, a SCU unifies both point of views. Indeed, the Nix law requires the communication between particles –the ‘numbers’ the sum of which is to remain nil– to be instantaneous: if particles create one another so we cannot ask which of the particles causes, precedes the other, then their communication must but be instantaneous so in a SCU c is not to be interpreted as a (finite) velocity even though it certainly is a limit to the velocity massive particles can move at. A and B therefore determine together whether and when a photon is transmitted: A cannot send a photon to B if B refuses to absorb it just as B cannot absorb it if A refuses to produce it, though A may find C wanting to absorb it –or perhaps it is D which commands A to produce the photon. In fact, all objects within the IH of both A and B participate in the transmission as it affects the energy of A and B and hence their own energy.

Classical Mechanics (which includes BBC and GR) can be defined as a physics based on the belief that there is an absolute, i.e., an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations, preceding such observations. In a universe which BFPD can be observed from without, which has particular properties as a whole –a universe which has been created by some Creator, mass and energy obviously can “neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.”

So whereas in a BBU only God can violate conservation laws and create mass and energy out of nothing, since a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole, we cannot even say that it contains energy. If the universe of a particle starts to exist, if it starts to be created itself as it starts to interact with other particles, then in a SCU mass only exists within their interactions, here energy can be created without limit, without violating any conservation law.

If the mass particles is both cause and effect of the force between them, and this force increases as they contract, then there’s mass created as they do. The farther apart, the less their universes overlap, the weaker their interactions are, the less it matter energetically how large their distance and relative velocity exactly is, the less definite the properties of one particle are according to the other, the more they have a virtual character to each other. We can say that their interactions are weak because of their distance, because clocks are observed to run slower as they are more distant, as if the other particle is slowed down in time, but also as if they obey somewhat different physical laws or, equivalently, as if their properties are qualitatively more different as they are farther apart.

The farther apart A and B are, the less their universes overlap, the less events at A are related to what happens at B, the less the pace of A’s clock is related to that of B’s clock, the slower one particle sees events proceed at the other, the slower they see each other evolve, the less they live in the same spacetime continuum. CM , BBC and GR, in clinging to the pre-Copernican concept of cosmic time assume that there is a single, objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations: that all particles live in the same time continuum. As a consequence it is thought that if we record on film what happens in a distant galaxy (the processes of which we see farther slowed down in time as it is more distant) and play it back at an accelerated pace, we can recover all information about what actually happened at the galaxy. In contrast, in a SCU A and B live less in the same time continuum as they are farther apart so A has less access to B’s information, the gathered information is less definite as they are farther apart. If in a SCU we record on film the evolution of a distant galaxy, then we cannot by playing back the film at an accelerated pace, recover its history as observed by a nearby observer since in a SCU the galaxy doesn’t just look different to different observers but is a different object –meaning that we don’t see a distant galaxy as it was in the past, in its youth, as ‘seen’ from without the universe, so to say.

If in a SCU particles are product and source of their interactions, then we can define the mass one particle has according to the other as being proportional to the strength of their interactions, to the frequency they exchange energy at. If in this definition the observed mass of an atom is smaller as it is more distant, then the energy of the photon the atom emits as it goes from an exited state to its ground state should be correspondingly smaller, shifted farther to red –even if the atom would be at rest with respect to the observer. If we define the information content of a photon to be equal to its frequency, and a photon on leaving the gravitational field of distant galaxy shifts to red, loses information, but the photon shifts to blue again as it penetrates the field of the Earth, say, then the information it lost on leaving the galaxy is not recovered as it shifts to blue, but is added to it by the Earth itself.

According to the Cosmological Principle (CP) there can be no unique point in space which dictates how (the fields at) all other points must be (agreeing with a SCU where we cannot ask what causally precedes what), so in a SCU every object can consider itself to be (at) the center, the origin of its universe so has some autonomy to evolve in its own (trial-and-error) manner.

BBC, in imagining to look at the universe from the outside, assumes that particle properties are the same everywherewhen and obey the same physical laws, so here the fact that the interactions between particles decrease as they are farther apart is explained by saying that distance ‘dilutes’ the force between them. If in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own Interaction Horizon(IH), its own universe and the universes of two particles (or galaxies) overlap less as they are farther apart, if events at one particle are less compulsively coupled to what happens at the other as they are father apart, then we can as well say that their properties are qualitatively more different or, equivalently, that the physical laws they obey are more different as they are farther apart

The redshift of light is thought to be caused either by a receding motion of the light source or by the gravitational field at the source, though if mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then we can call this a distance redshift. As a BBU lives in a time realm not of its own making it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere: as clocks run at the same pace everywhere (ignoring relativistic effects), here the redshift of galaxy clusters only can be explained by assuming that they recede from each other, that the universe expands. As a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, it does not live in time but contains and produces all time within: as in this universe a space distance is a time distance, clocks must be observed to run slower as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to the observer. This doesn’t necessarily mean that galaxies don’t move apart: the question is whether, to what extent we can distinguish the effects of distance from those of a receding velocity on the color of the light it emits. The Uncertainty Principle (UP) which at quantum level says that we cannot, to an arbitrary accuracy distinguish between the distance of a particle and its velocity since both affect its (observed) mass, at cosmic scale may translate into an uncertainty between the distance and velocity of galaxies.

However this may be, if mass in a SCU has an inclination to increase, to keep creating itself, and mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then spacetime similarly must be something which tends to increase, to keep creating itself, to expand.

According to Hubble’s law, clusters of galaxies recede from one another at a higher velocity as they are farther apart, so at some distance they would recede from each other, from us, faster than the speed of light –and indeed are unobservable.

However, to circumvent the fact that objects cannot move with a velocity > c relative to one another, BBC assumes that it aren’t the galaxy clusters which move apart –so no velocity limit is exceeded– but spacetime between them which expands. Indeed, we can’t have a universe where all particles all galaxies are made out of have been created at the bang so for all times should belong to the same universe, disappear from each other’s interaction horizon. So to save the big bang hypothesis, to be able to cling to the idea that the universe is an object which has particular properties as a whole, an object we can imagine to look at from without, BBC must insist that these galaxies all belong to a single universe –even though it, quite inconsistently, admits that at such distance or ‘velocity’ they cannot interact. Though this may appear to make sense in a universe where particles are the private owners of their properties, only the cause of interactions so they would keep existing even if when isolated from interactions –either by moving apart at velocities > c or by being separated by an infinite distance, if for the strength of the interactions between galaxies it doesn’t matter whatsoever whether they move apart or whether it is space between them which expands, then this is a bogus explanation.

The crux of the matter is that in a BBU the mass of galaxies is a more or less constant, ‘God-given’ quantity, only the cause of interactions, here an increase of the distance between galaxy clusters, against gravity, would require quite a lot of energy to achieve –and should result in a decelerating expansion. As observations instead indicate that the expansion of the universe accelerates, to power this expansion would require the existence of a mysterious kind of energy the density of which is constant in space and time –so would require a continuous creation of energy.

Though such continuous energy creation violates conservation laws, the UP seems to imply that space is filled to the brim with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which keep popping into and out of existence, their lifetime inversely proportional to their energy, so these ‘gratis’ particles are thought to constitute the dark energy to power this expansion. However, as the energy of particles is thought to be a positive quantity, always, this still violates conservation laws. Since in a SCU the energy sign of particles alternates at a frequency equal to its energy (h = 1), here no conservation law can be violated, though if the total net energy of the virtual particles the UP says must fill space then is nil, it cannot cause, power anything.

If to explain the observed expansion, BBC requires the density of this dark energy to be constant in space and in time, then this comes down to saying that the properties, the energy of the virtual particles is independent of their interactions, on where they pop into and out of existence, so only is cause of interactions. The fallacy of BBC is that it regards the virtual particles the UP says space must be filled with as an inherent property of space, as if they can be observed, their energy measured even from without the universe, as if they would exist even if they wouldn’t interact, as if their energy only is the cause of interactions, of the expansion we want to explain. However, if we explain the expansion as caused by the UP-virtual-particles but cannot explain the origin of their energy, never mind the UP, then we haven’t explained anything.

As in a SCU the energy of a particle is both product and source of its interactions, the strength of which depends on the presence of mass in its environment, here its energy depends on where it pops up, on the strength of the gravitational field. If (and when) these virtual particles actually are part of the gravitational field of massive objects, then their energy density would be smaller in empty space, farther from masses, and higher near massive objects. However, if a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime and we measure its energy content within the field, with a local ruler and clock which are observed to shrink and run at a slower pace as the field is stronger compared to the field at the observer, then we might say that the energy density is constant in space and time, though in a SCU we cannot accuse these particles of powering, of causing the observed expansion.

If in a SCU the mass of particles increases as they contract so there’s mass created as they evolve, if the mass of galaxies keeps increasing in time, then the force between clusters of galaxies can remain unchanged (so it takes no energy to increase their distance) only if the mass creation is accompanied by a proportional creation of distance, of spacetime between them –so a SCU doesn’t need any mysterious dark energy to explain observations. In other words, whereas a BBU needs a mysterious kind of energy to power the expansion against gravity, mysterious because though the UP implies their presence, it does not explain the origin of their energy (that is, if we insist that energy is a positive quantity, always), as in a SCU the gravitational force between the clusters is as much the effect as the cause of their mass, that force cannot thwart, prevent mass to keep creating itself, that is, cause the expansion to slow down in time –as it should in a BBU.

If, as CM has it, the mass of particles (and hence that of galaxy clusters) is a privately owned quantity, then the force and interaction energy of particles becomes infinite at infinitesimal distances so the bare mass and charge of an electron, for example, its ‘self-energy’ would be infinite –which contradicts the assumption that its mass, being only the cause of interactions, is supposed to be a constant, intrinsic property. In this view the rest mass of a particle it is thought of as a finite, fixed sum of money, a finite amount which, magically, nevertheless has an infinite purchasing power.

Though the bare mass and charge of an electron may be infinite, as it is thought to be shrouded in a cloud of photons and virtual electrons and positrons which shield the bare, infinite charge of the electron, forces and interaction energies can be renormalized so don’t actually become infinite, not everybody is happy with this state of affairs:

Paul Dirac:

”Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it anymore.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!”

Richard Feynman:

”The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.”

Abdus Salam:

”Field—theoretic infinities first encountered in Lorentz's computation of electron have persisted in classical electrodynamics for seventy and in quantum electrodynamics for some thirty-five years. These long years of frustration have left in the subject a curious affection for the infinities and a passionate belief that they are an inevitable part of nature; so much so that even the suggestion of a hope that they may after all be circumvented - and finite values for the renormalization constants computed - is considered irrational.”

The dictionarydefines ‘infinite’ as “limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate”, “from Latin infinitus, from in- 'not' + finitus 'finished’. Though electric interactions actually proved to be renormalizable after all thanks to the shielding effect of virtual negatively and positively charged particles, as gravity is thought to be an exclusively attractive force, gravity cannot be renormalized.

However invaluable renormalization calculations are, the infinity problem arises from the idea that particles, particle properties only are the cause of forces. Clearly, in a universe where the mass of particles is as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, a universe which wouldn’t know how to stop creating itself, where mass is a quantity which cannot stop increasing, creating itself, interaction energies and forces cannot become infinite, even though there is no limit to their value. Only in a BBU where the mass of a particle is an absolute quantity, something which BFPD can be measured even from outside the universe, only the cause of forces can there be gravitational singularities: in a SCU it is a relative, interaction dependent quantity.

The problem of present physics is that, despite abundant indications to the contrary, it assumes that there is an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations, causing, preceding its observation.

Einstein:

“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.”

Not so in a SCU, at least not at the level of elementary particles.

If all particles were provided with all their properties at their creation, calibrated to the last decimal, then, knowing all properties and initial conditions in detail, the evolution of the universe would already be determined in detail at its creation, so we should be able, in principle, to predict the outcome of every interaction –if God indeed doesn’t throw dice.

What threw a spanner in this deterministic, essentially religious worldview was the discovery of QM that the same experiment, when repeated, does not, as a rule, result in the same outcome: that events aren’t predetermined but instead must be described as probabilities. According to the Copenhagen interpretation

”… quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. According to the interpretation, the act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values”.

Though Einstein didn’t think of himself as a religious man, he actually was by clinging to causality, by regarding the universe as an object which has properties as a whole and, in our imagination, can be observed from without: though he was one of the founding fathers of QM, he rejected the theory on the grounds that ‘God doesn’t throw dice’.

Mass and inertia

The present addiction to causality makes many (pseudo) problems unsolvable, like why the mass of an object equals its inertia, its opposition to an acceleration:

“Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any difference between them. In classical mechanics, 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 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 (GR) 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 extendend inertial frames. Einstein was 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 back-reaction to its own gravitational field, but that is not the case.” W Rindler, in Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological

Though physicists know that “inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies”(Einstein) and agree that ”all mass is interaction” (Feynman), one still hasn’t drawn the conclusion that the mass/inertia of particles then must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions. As in a SCU their mass is both cause and effect of the force with which they anchor each other to the positions to act from, to attract and be attracted, their attraction obviously cannot exceed their inertia, the force with which they oppose a displacement, so there’s nothing puzzling about the equality of mass and inertia. This is just Newton’s action = reaction law which describes the obvious fact that a force only can be as great as the counterforce it is able to evoke: only in a fictitious universe where mass causally precedes gravity, this equality remains a mystery.

In regarding the universe as an object which has certain properties and is in some particular state as a whole, BBC in fact states that there’s something outside of it with respect to which it exists, interact with, something it is part of –something it owes its properties to. If particles indeed would owe their properties to something outside the universe, that is, would have been created by some outside interference, then it would be impossible to ever understand their origin, their nature, why they came to have the properties they have.

BBC, in clinging to the idea that particles, particle properties only are the cause of interactions must assume that a force either is attractive or repulsive so BBC in fact makes it impossible to ever unify the forces associated with those properties: by imagining to look at the universe from without, BBC in fact says that the universe lives in a realm not of its own making, so represents a religious view on reality.

If we want to think about the universe as an object, then a SCU is like a zero endlessly splitting itself into positive and negative numbers, their sum always nil, a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it costs: nothing. The Nix law which states that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, or, equivalently, that the universe cannot have any particular properties or be in some particular state as a whole is not something trivial: it is a powerful tool to detect misconceptions which from the usual point of view are too self-evident to even suspect, a shortcut to determine whether some idea might make sense or not.

If, for example, everything inside the universe has to cancel, then it obviously cannot contain more matter than antimatter, so either there’s something wrong with observations indicating that it contains mainly regular matter or with our notion of what (anti) matter is, what energy is.

Planck constant

Since a SCU has no physical reality as a whole, doesn’t exist as ‘seen’ from without the Planck constant and associated Planck length cannot be the minimum quantities of energy and length, be the minimum ‘building’ blocks of energy and space most physicists assume the universe is built out of.

So a question like that of J. A. Wheeler:

”How come a value for the quantum so small as h/2π = 2.612 × 10 ^–66 cm²?”

or, expressed in the terms or (dimensions) of energy and time

h/2π = 6.582 × 10 ^{– 16} J. sec

doesn’t make any sense.

If in a SCU c refers to a property of spacetime, if in this universe a space distance is a time distance so we can swap the dimension of length L for that of time T, then c doesn’t refer to a (finite) velocity is a just a conversion factor, a dimensionless number which says how many km space distance correspond to one second time distance.

Likewise, as Planck’s law defines the energy of a wave, an oscillation as being proportional to the inverse of its period T (E = h ν or h = E / ν and a frequency has the dimension 1/T) so we can swap the ‘dimension’ E for 1 / T, then h similarly is just a dimensionless number, a conversion factor between energy and time, so is not a minimum energy quantum.

We can only say that it is a minimum energy quantity if energy would be an absolute quantity, if it would be a quantity which can be observed, measured from without the universe, that is, in a universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, where (cosmic) time passes at the same pace everywhere (when corrected for the effects of gravity and motion) so we have a time base to our disposal to measure, calibrate frequencies, energies with. In other words, the idea of a minimum energy and length reflects a religious rather than a scientific view on our world..

Gravity and time

According to relativity theory, a clock inside a gravitational field is observed to run slower (faster) as the field strength at the clock is stronger (weaker) than it is at the observer.

As a consequence, random events which lead to an increase of the field strength, of the mass of its source, tend to be preserved above events decreasing it, so in imposing a direction on events, gravity can be said to power time itself, driving the changes we experience as the passing of time.

Indeed, if a universe is to create itself, if particles are to create one another, then mass must have a built-in tendency to increase, to keep creating itself, so, being both the cause and effect of forces, it manifests itself as an attractive force.

The misleading thing about gravity is that, in powering the changes in the universe we experience as the passing of time, we have a sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that one is the cause of the other, as if mass can precede gravity, cause particles to contract whereas in a SCU we can as well say that their mass, gravity between them increases only if and when they contact, powering time as they do.

Because a BBU lives in a time realm not of its own making, where (cosmic) time is supposed to proceed at a constant pace, here mass causally precedes gravity –in which case Feynman’s adage that ‘all mass is interaction’ is invalid, the consequence of which is that in a BBU mass, gravity can never be understood even in principle – never mind Higgs.

So whereas in CM and BBC all particles are thought to have been created with a certain mass –after which they start to contract in time, so a BBU lives in a time continuum not of its own making, in a SCU it is the inclination of mass to keep creating itself, to contract which powers time, agreeing with a universe which contains and produces all time within.

For reasons which will be discussed shortly, in this text the rest energy of an object is defined as being greater as its position, or the position of its mass center is less indefinite. Let’s for now say that as the indefiniteness in the position of one particle is smaller according to the other particle as their distance is smaller, the force between particles, the mass they have according to each other, increases as they contract, so according to this definition there is mass created as they contract –as well as spacetime, as argued above.

As in CM, in BBC the mass of particles is thought of as a privately owned quantity, causing them to contract, here the force towards one another is thought to exceed the forces from other directions –contradicting Newton’s action = reaction law which states the obvious fact that a force never can be greater or smaller that the counter force it is able to evoke.

If the attraction between particles cannot be greater or smaller than their opposition to it, their inertia –which acts like a repulsive force and these forces, being two manifestations of the same quantity, at all times are equally strong, and in a SCU we cannot really distinguish cause from effect, mass from gravity, then gravity cannot be either attractive or repulsive.

The confusion arises because we (CM, BBC and GR) assume particles to have been provided with a certain quantity of mass at some mysterious creation event: that their mass is a finite, unchangeable quantity, so to explain why particles contract, we’re forced to believe that gravity is an exclusively attractive force. As in a SCU their mass is both effect and cause of their interactions, here the force between them obviously is as attractive as it is repulsive, so increases because their mass, the mass they have according to one another increases as they do, is created as they contract.

Causality and unification

Since in BBC particle properties only are the cause of forces, here a force is either attractive or repulsive, so an equilibrium between particles must be explained as a balance between two qualitatively different forces, so their sources must necessarily independent, the magnitude of the kind of ‘charge’ which powers one force unrelated to that of the other, so here forces never can be unified even in principle.

As in this view the electric repulsion between the protons in atomic nuclei is huge, to explain how they nevertheless can form stable nuclei, one had to posit the existence of an equally strong attractive, so-called strong force, a new kind of force and hence a new kind of charge (called ‘color’). Evidently, any equilibrium between independent forces is very unstable as the protons will go sit on top of each other as soon as the strong attraction overcomes their electric repulsion at some specific distance.

Though the force binding protons and neutrons to nuclei is a residual force, a ‘leftover’ from the strong force which binds the quarks to nucleons (protons and neutrons), to explain how atomic nuclei nevertheless are stable, one subsequently had to dream up the ( asymptotic freedom mechanism which prevents the force between the nucleons to keep increasing at shorter distances. According to this scheme, and unlike any other force, the force between the quarks within the nucleons doesn’t increase at shorter distances, a kind of antiscreening effect.

Whereas in this view properties like electric charge and color charge necessarily must be independent, their nature and magnitude, as in a SCU a force is both the effect and cause of some property, that is, is as attractive as it is repulsive, here we don’t need qualitatively different, i.e., independent forces and charges to explain an equilibrium between particles.

As all kinds of forces contribute to the mass, the energy particles have according to one another, or, in a SCU we can as well say that their mass powers all kinds of forces, here all forces, charges must be intrinsically related, be different manifestations of a single quantity.

If an observing particle is to distinguish between particles moving in different directions, →, ←, ↓, ↑, approaching and receding and whether they spin up or down, then all these different motion-spin combinations must affect their interactions in a different manner, so can be associated with different properties, conserved quantities, quantum numbers. If any such motion by some symmetry operation (like a rotation) can be transformed into another, one property should, by means of such transformation change into the other, so what appear to be different kinds of forces, charges can be thought of as different manifestations of the same quantity.

String Theory (ST), based on the idea that the properties of particles only are the cause of forces –so here forces are either attractive or repulsive, always, so are qualitatively different, the magnitude of their ‘charge’ unrelated, obviously will never succeed to do what it was devised to do, unify what appears to be different forces. Instead of solving anything, string theory is part of the problem as all efforts only make the preconceptions we need to get rid of more respectable, thereby effectively blocking any progress in physics –though the real culprit of course is the Big Bang tale itself, the essentially religious belief that the universe was created by some outside intervention.

If in a SCU any force must be ambivalent and any force between particles contributes to their energy, then energy similarly must be an ambivalent quantity.

Notes

The Engine Room of a Self-Creating Universe: Energy and the Uncertainty Principle

If there would be only a single electron in the entire universe, then it wouldn’t be able to express its electric charge –in which case it cannot be charged itself: charge, any property, therefore must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions.

As in BBC particles for once and all have been provided with properties at their creation, here a property is a privately owned quantity: once created, only the cause of interactions, their existence doesn’t require any maintenance, any effort on the part of the particles, so here particles would keep existing even if they would be isolated, prevented to interact. Though to express their existence, to communicate the electromagnetic and gravitational forces between them they (are thought to) exchange virtual photons and gravitons, this exchange is thought of merely as a hobby of the particles, be it a mandatory one.

Since in a SCU particles exist to each other only if and as long as they interact, here they would stop to exist, vanish from each other’s universe if we could cut off their interactions.

If any interaction between particles is an exchange of energy, and we define the magnitude of their interactions, the energy one particle has according to the other as being equal to the frequency of the exchange (h = 1), then we can distinguish two kinds of interactions:

The continuous energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve each other’s properties and serves to preserve the status quo, and interactions like a collision or an energy transfer between particles which changes their state, distance, velocity or direction of motion, the properties they have according to each other, the frequency they exchange energy at.

Since the continuous energy exchange which preserves the status quo isn’t conspicuously observable, BBC assumes that there is no such ‘maintenance’ exchange, only the continuous, random exchange of virtual particles to communicate forces between particles and interactions which change the state and/or motion of the interacting particles.

The emission (absorption) of virtual photons and gravitons to transmit the electric and gravitational forces between real particles decreases (increases) the energy of the emitting (absorbing) particle, its mass and charge, so in a BBU their rest energy is supposed to fluctuate randomly about their ‘textbook’ value, the mass and charge they were created with. However, in CM it is unclear why the fluctuation in the energy of a particle should obey the UP according to which the greater the deviation Δ E in its energy E is, the shorter the time Δ t it lasts. No explanation is given as to why this should be, how a particle can know how large its energy ought to be, when its energy needs to be repleted, how it can prod its environment to supply any shortage in a timely fashion.

The UP implies that virtual particle-antiparticle pairs can appear out of nothing and exist for a time inversely proportional to their energy: as in BBC the rest energy of a particle is a quantity it has been provided with at its creation, a quantity which BFPD can be observed from without the universe, if energy can be expressed as a frequency and a frequency cannot be negative, here energy of a particle is thought to be a positive quantity, always, so here the UP is thought to limit the extent to which the law of conservation of energy may be violated: the greater the violation, the shorter it may last. This of course begs the question why, if a violation can occur, its existence should be limited in time –a question which already indicates that energy and time are not the independent quantities CM assumes them to be.

If energy is a wave phenomenon, if photons can annihilate each other without liberating any energy so a photon is its own antiparticle, then energy must be a quantity which in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next. So if mass is a form of energy, then a massive particle similarly must be a wave phenomenon, its energy in one phase as positive as it is negative in the next –the difference being that since particles in a SCU preserve each other’s mass by exchanging energy, two identical particles in counter phase only can annihilate with the consent of the particles they owe their mass to –so unlike photons, there is energy liberated when they annihilate. As a consequence, in a SCU there can energy be created and destroyed without violating any conservation law.

If in that case a particle and its antiparticle can pop up without violating any conservation law, if one particle borrows positive energy from its counterpart which then appears with an opposite energy sign relative to its counterpart, then there’s no reason why their lifetime should be shorter as their energy is higher. However, as long as the particle and its antiparticle only borrow/lend the energy to exist from and to each other, they have no reality to the particles in the midst of which they pop up: as long as they don’t interact with them –in which case they have no physical reality so we cannot even ascribe them a position, say that they exist, have energy.

Whereas in BBC, the energy of a particle is a privately owned quantity so only fluctuates randomly about its ‘textbook’ value, if in a SCU particles only exist to each other only if they exchange energy and energy is a wave phenomenon, its sign in one phase as positive as it is negative in the next, then in a SCU a particle alternately borrows an lends all of its energy in every cycle of its oscillation, its energy sign alternating at a frequency equal to its energy.

The UP therefore is just another formulation of Planck relation which acknowledges that energy is a quantity which is greater as its rate of change is greater, the frequency its sign alternates at.

So if particles only become real to the particles in the midst of which they pop up –for however short a time– if they borrow/lend energy from/to all particles within their interaction horizon, and real particles in every cycle borrow and lend all of their energy from and to all particles within their IH, then we can regard real particles to be virtual particles which managed to set up a mutual energy exchange by means of which they force each other to appear again and again after every disappearance.

If energy is a quantity which is greater as its rate of change is greater, and this rate of change varies within every cycle, then in a SCU a particle can be said to be created and uncreated time and time again, its mass waxing and waning: as if nature, in an effort to obey the Nix law, tries to un-create what it created a moment before.

So if we define the mass one particle has according to the other as greater as their distance is less indefinite, which it is as their distance is smaller, then the frequency they exchange energy at, the energy they have according to each other increases as they contract. Since (only) in a SCU clocks run slower, particles are observed to oscillate at a lower frequency as they are more distant even when at rest relative to the observer, here the frequency they exchange energy at, the energy one particle observes the other particle to have, increases as they contract so there’s mass created as they do.

Mass, a definition based on the uncertainty principle: weak and strong gravity

It seems reasonable to define the indefiniteness in the position of a particle as greater the less it matter to nature whether it exists, when it is where, how it moves: the smaller its mass is, the weaker the forces it exerts and feels, the less energy it takes to displace or accelerate it, the larger the area it can be found in, the less definite its position is.

It is obvious, then, to define the mass of a particle as greater as its position is less indefinite, as it is anchored more strongly within a smaller area: the less indefinite the position of the mass center of an object is, the greater its mass is.

The smaller its mass is, the longer its wavelengths it exchanges energy at, the less definite the time is when a wave crest or through passes some point, the less definite the position and motion of the particle is, the less defined its properties are, the more it has a virtual character.

If a particle at rest exchanges energy in longer wavelengths with other particles as they are more distant or less massive and in shorter wavelengths as they are nearer or heavier, then its total rest energy, the mass we measure it to have, is the sum, the superposition of all wavelengths, frequencies it exchanges energy at with all particles within its IH –see superposition principle. As seen from the particle’s mass center the forces on it or the superposition frequency is the is the same in all directions.

As a force can only be as strong as the counter force it is able to evoke, the forces on a particle can be stronger as they are more exactly equal from all directions, as the exchange frequencies are more exactly the same in all directions. The stronger the forces on the particle, the more precisely equal they must be in all directions, the smaller the area is where they are more exactly equal, where we can localize the particle, the less indefinite its position is, the more energy it takes to displace it, the greater its mass is, its inertia, its opposition to a displacement, the more energy it takes to accelerate it –so in a SCU it’s obvious why the mass of a particle equals its inertia.

If in a SCU its mass is both the product and source of forces, of interactions, then we can define the mass it has according to an observing particle as the frequency they exchange energy at, so is an observer-dependent quantity: the smaller the mass of the observing particle and/or the farther apart they are, the smaller the mass they observe each other to have.

Though the mass m we find a particle to have by using Newton’s second law, F = m a, by applying a force F to it and measure its acceleration a is an objectively measurable quantity, from the point of view of the particles interacting with it, contributing to its energy, its observed mass depends on the distance and mass of the observing particle so is an interaction-dependent quantity. The point is that whereas in CM a particle property is defined as being independent of its behavior, as being the cause of forces, in a SCU the magnitude of a property varies with the strength of its interactions so is a variable, a relative quantity.

For the record: if a particle expresses and preserves its mass by exchanging energy with all particles within its IH and it for some reason gets accelerated away from the environment, the particle cluster it acquired its mass in and ends up in empty space, far from masses, then it can no longer maintain the frequency it exchanges energy at, preserve its mass. However, it can slow down its clock by contracting its gravitational field so that, according to its slowed-down clock, as seen from its mass center, its exchange frequency remains unchanged. In that case such particles can, when they come back in the ‘civilized world’ seem to act more as the cause than the effect of their interactions –discussion to be continued.

If particles express and preserve each other’s mass by exchanging energy and it doesn’t even make sense in a SCU to ask which particle came first, caused the other into existence, then the exchange must be instantaneous.

Like the mass of a particle can be defined to be smaller as it matters less whether it exist, where it is when and how it moves, the energy of a photon is smaller as the effect of its transmission is smaller, as it matters less whether and when it is transmitted, how large its energy exactly is. The smaller the energy of a photon is, the longer, the less definite its wavelength is, its energy, the less definite the time is when a wave crest or through passes some point, the less definite the position of the particles between which it is transmitted or exchanged, the less definite their distance is.

For historical reasons, one has chosen to regard the energy of a particle to be less definite as it is higher. However, if in a SCU energy is a quantity which is greater as its rate of change is greater (E ∝ dE/dt), so the energy of a particle varies more within every cycle as its energy is higher, then we obviously find a greater variation in the value we measure it to have as its energy is higher and the time interval during which we measure it is shorter. This greater variation therefore does not mean that at higher energies, the uncertainty in the energy is larger: though it may seem to be easier to measure a wavelength more precisely as it is larger, if a wave crest or through is flatter at longer wavelengths so we can less precisely determine the point where the top of the crest is, then that means that it matters less to nature, physically, how long it exactly is.

As the force between two particles changes more per unit distance as their distance is smaller, the distance between two particles similarly can be defined to be less indefinite as it is smaller. The smaller, the less indefinite their distance is, the less indefinite, the higher the frequency is they exchange energy at, the greater the force between particles is, the mass they have according to one another.

The smaller the mass of two particles is and/or the farther they are apart, the less definite their mass and/or distance is, the lower, the less definite the frequency they exchange energy at.

Like with a microscope we cannot distinguish details smaller than the wavelength of the used light, particles cannot exchange energy in a wavelength, at a frequency which is less (in)definite than the (in)definiteness in their distance. So if a larger distance is a less definite distance, then the frequency two particles exchange energy at decreases, shifts farther to red as they are farther apart even when they are at rest relative to one another.

If the energy of particles varies within every cycle, then so does the indefiniteness in their position, their distance, so if we cannot know what in phase two particles are when they collide, interact, then we obviously cannot predict the outcome of their interaction, though if we repeat the experiment many times, we find a distribution of results which depends on their energy.

As in a BBU it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, the evolutionary state of objects is thought of as something absolute, something which BFPD it can objectively be observed from without the universe: as here the speed of light is a velocity, here a galaxy only looks different from different distances, so observers see the galaxy as it was some time in the past.

In contrast, as in a SCU particles, the objects they form owe their mass to all objects within their IH, if their mass is ‘fed’, powered by their –instantaneous- exchange over all spacetime distances, here an observer sees the object as it is at present, to him. In other words, as far as in a BBU a particle can be said to owe its energy to interactions with objects over all distances, these contributions to its energy are thought to originate in a past state of the object, in a SCU there’s nothing ‘past’ about such contributions as the particle ‘in one breath’ borrows as much energy from the distant object as the object, in the next breath, borrows energy from the particle.

BBC assumes that here is an objectively observable object, a galaxy, for example, at the origin of our observations so here the galaxy only looks different to observing particles at different distances. If in a SCU its energy is the superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy with all particles within its IH, at different distances, and the contribution of a particle to its energy is smaller as they are farther apart, as their exchange frequency is lower. As a lower frequency can be associated with an earlier evolutionary phase so the energy the galaxy has at present to a local observer is composed of contributions from all over spacetime then the phase the local observer sees his galaxy in similarly must be a superposition of different evolutionary phases. In a SCU the energy it has at present, according to the local observer, is powered by exchanges with objects over all distances, here their contribution to its energy does not originate in the past (as it would in a BBU) but is sustained, powered by what in a SCU is a ‘live’, instantaneous two-way ‘traffic’ of energy between the galaxy and objects over all of spacetime.

So whereas in a BBU it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere so here we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in the past, in a SCU we see it as it is at present, to us. Whereas in a BBU the galaxy is an object which is the same to all observers and only looks different as seen from different distances, an object which BFPD can be observed from without the universe, in a SCU it is a different object to different observers.

According to the Nix law, a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, so it cannot have a beginning as a whole: if, unlike a BBU, it contains and produces all time within, then this seems to mean that it at all times must contains objects in all possible evolutionary phases, that there is no unique beginning, that particles keep creating one another.

If a particle observes an object to have a greater mass as its own mass is greater and/or their distance is smaller, then the evolutionary phase it observes objects to be in depends on its own mass and on their distance. The smaller the mass of an observing particle is and/or the more distant the observed objects are, the lower their exchange frequency is, the earlier the evolutionary the phase it observes them to be in, the younger it is itself and the younger its universe looks like, the younger it is.

So unlike a BBU where all particles have the same birth date at which they were provided with all their properties calibrated to the last decimal, a mass which forever after is to remain constant, in a SCU the universe of a particle is created, starts to be created, as it starts to interact, to accumulate mass. Since a SCU wouldn’t know how to stop creating itself, since only in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the origin of its universe, as a SCU contains and produces all time within, it should at all times contain objects in all possible evolutionary phases –so obeys the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP).

However, since in a SCU the (observed) properties of an object depend on the mass, motion and distance of the observer, not all objects or evolutionary phases are accessible to observation to all observers.

Though the repulsion between like charges is said to be 10⁴⁰ times stronger than their gravitational attraction, if their repulsion only can be as great as the counter force it encounters, and the Equivalence Principle allows us call this opposition ‘inertia’ so their electric repulsion equals their gravitational attraction, then we might as well say that gravity powers their charge, the electric force and vice versa, or that it concerns a single, ambivalent force.

As in BBC particle properties only are cause of interactions, they don’t have to exchange energy to preserve their properties, to keep existing: as galaxies are electrically neutral objects, here the only force thought to work between galaxies is gravity which in this view is a very weak force, so clusters of galaxies are thought to be loosely bound, to more or less float in space, as if space, though curvable by mass, had additional properties independent from mass.

In contrast, in a SCU galaxies must continuously exchange energy to preserve each other’s mass, the mass they have according to each other depends on their distance, here their mass powers, maintains a strong force which, as their mass is both cause and effect of the force between them, is as attractive as it is repulsive. What we perceive as –a weak– gravitational force is the expression of the tendency of mass to increase, to keep creating itself, which particles do by contracting, so the fact that gravity is attractive in fact proves that we live in a self-creating universe. If, on the other hand, as argued, the creation of mass is the creation of spacetime between the mass concentrations, as if they repulse one another, we can, in fact, regard (weak) gravity also as an ambivalent force.

In a SCU we therefore can distinguish two kinds of gravity: ‘strong’ gravity, the ambivalent force associated with the preservation of (the energy of) objects, powered by a continuous energy exchange which anchors them firmly to their positions, and a ‘weak’ gravity which is the expression of the tendency of mass to keep creating itself. So if the energy exchange is an electromagnetic phenomenon, associated with charge, then we might as well say that it is the electromagnetic interactions between galaxies which powers their mass, strong gravity between them, that the charge of particles refers to their energy sign.

Notes

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics

Richard Feynman

The weirdness of Quantum Mechanics: the double-slit experiment

If in the double-slit experiment a light source emits two photons which annihilate when they meet in counter phase at the projection screen without liberating any energy so the source hasn’t lost energy by emitting them, then that must mean that the source didn’t emit them.

To be able to emit only photons in such directions in which they will be absorbed, the particles emitting the light must be informed about their environment, the experimental set-up.

This of course is impossible in a universe where c is a velocity, where, as particle properties are privately owned quantities, independent from their interactions, the emission of a photon at one place is completely independent of its voyage and absorption elsewhere. As physicists at present still cling to causality, that is, imagine to follow the photon from an observation post outside the universe, deluding themselves that they can determine what precedes what in an absolute sense, they have invented virtual photons which have the uncanny ability to reconnoiter on behalf of the light source where it can get rid of energy, in what direction it has to emit a photon which will be absorbed. These virtual or spook photons are thought to have no energy unless and until they actually are absorbed somewhere –at which time they suddenly become real and prove to have carried energy after all, whereas the ones which don’t encounter no suitable candidate to absorb it are supposed to return to the source, begging the question whether they have got instruction how far they should travel before turning back, as well as why they should return back to the source when, after all, they carried no energy.

Besides the problem that if they have no energy, they cannot interact with objects in the environment to gather no information, such interactions are impossible if from the point of view of the photon, according to relativity theory, there is no distance in space nor time between the particles it is transmitted between. If they could carry such environmental info back to the source, then this is indistinguishable from the situation where it is the absorbing particle which causes the photon transmission.

Whereas in a causal, a caused universe it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere so here a photon transmission necessarily takes time, as in a SCU a space distance is a time distance, here the communication between the particle(s) emitting a photon are in instantaneous contact with the absorbing particle(s): in a SCU a light source cannot produce a photon without the cooperation of the absorber which is to absorb it. To be clear, it is not so that the ‘speed’ of light in a SCU is infinite: as we cannot even ask which of the particles causes the photon transmission, whether a photon goes from A to B or an antiphoton from B to A, we cannot ascribe it a velocity. Though by switching on the light, we can cause a potential light source to actually emit light, that is, increase the probability to get rid of photons to become almost a certainty, without the cooperation of the objects which are to absorb its light a lamp wouldn’t be able to emit a single photon: though we can cause a photon transmission, that doesn’t mean that it takes the photon time to get from A to B –or an antiphoton from B to A, that the (anti) photon departs at A (B) before it is absorbed at B (A). In a SCU A and B keep each other at all times other informed about their state as they exchange energy, so here the light source ‘knows’ in what directions to emit photons.

Whereas when using light, interference leads to a pattern of dark and illuminated bands, if instead of photons, if we use electrons instead of photons and a projection screen made out of tiny electron detectors, we find a similar interference pattern.

Now the weird thing is that if we shoot the electrons one at a time, one after the other, we still find an interference pattern, as if a single electron goes through both slits at once and interferes with itself. This is incomprehensible in CM as here the electron is the private owner of its properties, only the cause of interactions, so its motion shouldn’t be affected by the presence of a second slit. Indeed, since in the present, causal interpretation of QM particles aren’t supposed to continuously exchange energy to keep existing to one another, this behavior is a mystery –never mind that physicists do agree that “all mass is interaction”, an adage which, by the way, should be extended to any property, any kind of charge.

As in a SCU both the mass and charge of the electron are both the product and source of its interactions, if it preserves its properties by exchanging energy with all particles within its near and far environment so on nearing the slits its world splits in two slightly different worlds –which from both splits and both sides of screen interferes with the path of the electron, then the observed interference patterns can be expected as the electron is a wave phenomenon. Alternatively, if its energy varies within every cycle, then so does the indefiniteness in its position, so if we were to take this indefiniteness as a measure of its size –a size which then waxes and wanes at a frequency equal to its energy, then it would indeed move through both slits at once during the phases in which its ‘size’ exceeds the distance between the slits.

So the interference pattern only is puzzling if we cling to causality, to the idea that the electron is the private owner of its mass and charge, in a universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, where light moves at a (finite) velocity.

Similarly, in a SCU there’s nothing paradoxical about the EPR paradox: if the information particles contain, represent, their properties are both cause and effect of their interactions, communication, so two entangled particles A and B at all times are informed, ‘live’, in real time, about each other’s state, then A cannot assume an ‘up’ spin without B simultaneously assuming a down spin relative to A and vice versa.

If in a SCU particles are cause and effect of their interactions so the nature and behavior of every particle is represented in that of every other particle within its IH, then a particle is like a hologram fragment which contains all information of the entire hologram, like a particle contains all information about its universe. If the particle contains less information, shows a vaguer, less definite picture of its universe as its mass is smaller, then then that because its properties are less defined as its energy is smaller. Another property of the ‘hologram-particle’ is that as the observer is himself depicted in the fragment, he affects its information he wants to read by reading it, by interacting with it –which is why the measurement of the position of a particle affects its momentum and vice versa.

Notes

“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. .. Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated..”

A flat universe?

According to BBC, all particles were provided with a definite mass and given a certain velocity –kinetic energy– at which they receded from one another at the bang. The question was whether gravity between the galaxies these particle formed would be strong enough to slow down the expansion enough so the universe would eventually start to contract, whether the expansion would keep slowing down without ever stopping completely –as in a flat universe, or whether it would keep expanding forever.

In a BBU the rest energy of the particles only is related to their kinetic energy if the universe is flat:

“… cosmologists were asking why the geometry of the Universe was flat, or at least so close to it. When the density of our Universe was determined to be the value corresponding to a flat universe, or at least a universe close to flat, this appeared very strange to many cosmologists. As time passes and a universe expands, if its density is not exactly the critical density (the value corresponding to a flat universe), it steadily becomes more curved and less flat. If in the first seconds after the Big Bang the Universe had a density that was even slightly more or slightly less than the critical density, then by today the Universe would be very highly curved. In fact, in order for the density of our Universe to be within a factor of ten of the critical density today, the density at one second after the Big Bang would have to be fixed to the exact value of the critical density to within one part in 10⁶⁰. Finding our universe to be flat is like balancing a needle on a table and finding that it hadn't fallen over a billion years later.”

Well, if the universe has no reality as a whole, as ‘seen’ from without, then it obviously doesn’t make sense to ask how much energy it contains and how large it is, its energy density. Worse, the idea that the energy density can be a significant quantity, determine the fate of the universe (which, as it doesn’t exist as a whole, it cannot have) only makes sense if energy and space are independent quantities –so shouldn’t affect each other as GR says they must.

Another problem is that if the kinetic energy, the velocity at which the freshly created particles recede from one another at the bang, the ‘outwards force’ driving them apart in a flat universe eventually becomes equal to gravity between the galaxy clusters they in the meantime formed so the expansion dwindles to an infinitesimal pace, then you’d say that this always must have been the case –in which case a bang would be impossible to happen.

Anyhow, since the amount of matter and energy once created at the bang, was supposed to remain constant forever, an expansion would mean that the energy density decreases in time, be it at a decreasing pace due to gravity between clusters of galaxies. However, as the rate of expansion was observed to remain constant, possibly to even increase, one had to invent dark energy to explain this, requiring a continuous creation of energy, out of nothing, at the rate of the expansion:

“The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda”[..] Since energy and mass are related by E = mc² [..] 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 why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. 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 (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρ V, where ρ is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, P is negative and, in fact, P = −ρ.”

However, many cosmologists seem to suspect that it doesn’t really make sense to speak about the energy content or density of the universe: they prefer a flat universe as it is thought that only in such universe the total energy can be zero.

Lawrence M. Krauss:

“Where does all the energy come from in the first place? How can a microscopically small region end up as a universe-sized region today with enough matter and radiation within it to account for everything we can see? More generally we might ask the question, How is it that the density of energy can remain constant in an expanding universe with a cosmological constant, or false vacuum energy? After all, in such a universe, space expands exponentially, so that if the density of energy remains the same, the total energy within any region will grow as the volume of the region grows. What happened to the conservation of energy?”

The problem is that as ‘seen’ from outside the universe, it cannot be ascribed a dimension if it has no reality as a whole, that is, if weights, lengths and times just aren’t defined outside of it. As seen from within, the assessment about its size would depend on the local gravitational field:

“Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.”

Besides the fact that we can only speak about the energy density at the bang if energy and space are independent quantities, as if they are created separately, if an infinite energy density of the starting universe implies an infinitely strong gravitational field so a ruler in the field shrinks to an infinitesimal size, then according to that ruler, the universe is infinite, so we cannot say that it was ‘microscopically small’.

Krauss continues:

“This is an example of something that Alan Guth coined as the ultimate “free lunch.” Including the effects of gravity in thinking about the universe allows objects to have –amazingly– "negative" as well as "positive" energy. This facet of gravity allows for the possibility that positive energy stuff, like matter and radiation, can be complemented by negative energy configurations that just balance the energy of the created positive energy stuff. In so doing, gravity can start out with an empty universe - and end up with a filled one. [..] A moving object in the gravitational field of the Earth has two kinds of energy. One, the energy of motion, is called kinetic energy, from the Greek word for motion. This energy, which depends upon the speed of the object, is always positive. The other component of the energy, called potential energy (related to the potential to do work), is generally negative. This is the case because we define the total gravitational energy of an object located at rest infinitely far away from any other object as being zero, which seems reasonable. The kinetic energy is clearly zero, and we define the potential energy as zero at this point, so the total gravitational energy is zero. Now, if the object is not infinitely far away from all other objects but is close to an object, like the Earth, it will begin to fall toward it because of the gravitational attraction. As it falls, it speeds up, and if it smacks into something on the way (say, your head), it can do work by, say, splitting it open. The closer it is to the Earth's surface when it is let go, the less work it can do by the time it hits the Earth. Thus, potential energy decreases as you get closer to the Earth. But if the potential energy is zero when it is infinitely far away from the Earth, it must get more and more negative the closer it gets to the Earth because its potential to do work decreases the closer it gets. [..] … the wonderful thing about objects that are subject to only the force of gravity is that the sum of their potential and kinetic energies remains a constant. As objects fall, potential energy is converted to the kinetic energy or motion, and as they bounce back up off the ground, kinetic energy is converted back to potential, and so on. This allows us a marvelous bookkeeping tool to determine how fast one needs to throw something up in the air in order to escape the Earth, since if it eventually is to reach infinitely far away from the Earth, its total energy must be greater than or equal to zero. l then simply have to ensure that its total gravitational energy at the time it leaves my hand is greater than or equal to zero. Since I can control only one aspect of its total energy –namely the speed with which it leaves my hand– all I have to do is find the magic speed where the positive kinetic energy of the ball equals the negative potential energy it has due to the attraction at the Earth's surface. Both the kinetic energy and the potential energy of the ball depend precisely the same way on the mass of the ball, which therefore cancels out when these two quantities are equated, and one finds a single "escape velocity" for all objects from the Earth's surface, namely about 7 miles per second, when the total gravitational energy of the object is precisely zero. What has all this got to do with the universe in general, and inflation in particular, you may ask? Well, the exact same calculation I just described for a ball that I throw up from my hand at the Earth's surface applies to every object in our expanding universe. Consider a spherical region of our universe centered on our location (in the Milky Way galaxy) and large enough to encompass a lot of galaxies but small enough so that it is well within the largest distances we can observe today. If the region is large enough but not too large, then the galaxies at the edge of the region will be receding from us uniformly due to the Hubble expansion, but their speeds will be far less than the speed of light. In this case, the laws of Newton apply, and we can ignore the effects of special and general relativity. In other words, every object is governed by physics that is identical to that which describes the balls that I have just imagined trying to eject from the Earth. Consider the galaxy [..] moving away from the center of the distribution [..] Now just as for the ball from the Earth, we can ask whether the galaxy will be able to escape from the gravitational pull of all the other galaxies within the sphere. And the calculation we would perform to determine the answer is precisely the same as the calculation we performed for the ball. We simply calculate the total gravitational energy of the galaxy, based on its motion outward (giving it positive energy), and the gravitational pull of its neighbors (providing a negative energy piece). If its total energy is greater than zero, it will escape to infinity, and if less than zero, it will stop and fall inward. [..] In a flat universe, and only in a flat universe, the total average Newtonian gravitational energy of each object moving with the expansion is precisely zero! This is what makes a flat universe so special. In such a universe the positive energy of motion is exactly canceled by the negative energy of gravitational attraction. When we begin to complicate things by allowing for empty space to have energy, the simple Newtonian analogy to a ball being thrown up in the air becomes incorrect, but the conclusion remains essentially the same. In a flat universe, even one with a small cosmological constant, as long as the scale is small enough that velocities are much less than the speed of light, the Newtonian gravitational energy associated with every object in the universe is zero. In fact, with a vacuum energy, Guth's “free lunch” becomes even more dramatic. As each region of the universe expands to ever larger size, it becomes closer and closer to being flat, so that the total Newtonian gravitational energy of everything that results after the vacuum energy during inflation gets converted to matter and radiation becomes precisely zero. But you can still ask, Where does all the energy come from to keep the density of energy constant during inflation, when the universe is expanding exponentially? Here, another remarkable aspect of general relativity does the trick. Not only can the gravitational energy of objects be negative, but their relativistic ”pressure” can be negative. Negative pressure is even harder to picture than negative energy, Gas, say in a balloon, exerts pressure on the walls of the balloon. In so doing, if it expands the walls of the balloon, it does work on the balloon. The work it does causes the gas to lose energy and cool. However, it turns out that the energy of empty space is gravitationally repulsive precisely because it causes empty space to have a negative pressure. As a result of this negative pressure, the universe actually does work on empty space as it expands. This work goes into maintaining the constant energy density of space even as the universe expands. Thus, if the quantum properties of matter and radiation end up endowing even an infinitesimally small region of empty space with energy at very early times, this region can grow to be arbitrarily large and arbitrarily flat. When the inflation is over, one can end up with a universe full of stuff (matter and radiation), and the total Newtonian gravitational energy of that stuff will be as close as one can ever imagine to zero. So when all the dust is settled, and after a century of trying, we have measured the curvature of the universe and found it to be zero. You can understand why so many theorists like me have found this not only very satisfying, but also highly suggestive. A universe from Nothing . . . indeed.”

“As a result of this negative pressure, the universe actually does work on empty space as it expands. This work goes into maintaining the constant energy density of space even as the universe expands.”

Well, if the universe works on empty space, on itself, then it must produce itself the energy to work, to power its expansion, so it must in some mysterious manner manage to keep creating the energy it needs to expand –as if you can pull yourselves by your hair out of a swamp.

If in a flat universe the ‘negative pressure’, the outwards ‘expansion force’ between galaxy clusters eventually equals the gravitational force between them, then this must always have been the case –unless we assume that the universe has been created by some outside intervention and anything goes.

Because we assume that regular particles were created with a certain mass, because we assume that mass causally precedes gravity, we must assume that there is a repulsive force independent of gravity, of mass, a force, the so-called Cosmological Constant Einstein had to introduce, put in his field equation after the discovery that the universe isn’t static but expands.

Similarly, Stephen Hawking:

“We might decide that there wasn't any singularity. The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time.”

Although “strong gravitational fields .. can create matter” indeed, this doesn’t give a clue as to the origin of gravitational fields .. of matter.

My, this is embarrassing: “Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time” –stating that it has a beginning and lives in a time realm not of its own making, to contradict this in the same breath by adding “There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe.” Though there indeed doesn’t have to be any beginning in space to the universe in the sense that on such spherical surface there’s no point which is more unique than any other, to insist that it obviously has a beginning in time reflects an awesome myopia.

The present confusion reminds of the misconceptions obstructing the unification of forces. Causality, damning us to understand a particle equilibrium as a balance between two opposite forces, each powered by its own, autonomous, i.e., un-unifiable properties, causes as similar quandary in cosmology. Clinging to the idea that the mass of objects only is the cause of gravity –so gravity in this view is an exclusively attractive force, cosmologists need another, exclusively repulsive force –and give it the fancy name “negative energy pressure”, to be powered by a new type of energy.

Requiring this energy to be qualitatively different from other kinds () of energy, it of course has to be ‘dark’, that is, be unobservable but in its gravitational effects, to cause the desired repulsion to explain why the expansion isn’t observed to slow down due to gravity: indeed, it “ .. is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity”., just what the doctor ordered –though it is quite a large dose of medicine as no less than 74% of all energy in the universe is supposed to be dark. In other words, to explain an observation, we need to introduce, invent a phenomenon which only can be taken seriously if it is mysterious, dark, if we define it to be unlike any other energy –and hence cannot possibly be understood.

Evidently, a SCU doesn’t need any mysterious energy to explain observations since here the creation of mass is the creation of spacetime.

Though one might argue that (action = reaction) a force always equals the counter force it encounters or evokes, the point is that if the mass of the primordial particles in the same manner affects both their potential and kinetic energy, then to insist that the universe expands despite its energy being zero, is saying that the inertia of the particles which allows them to store the kinetic energy they alleged got at the bang exceeds their mass –which powers their gravitational attraction, their potential energy. If in a zero-energy universe the potential energy of all particles, powered by their mass, their gravitational attraction is equal to their kinetic energy, powered by some mysterious repulsion which drives their receding motion, the expansion of the universe so both forces are equal at all times, then it cannot expand, create itself. To insist that it can is saying that, as the sum of the kinetic and potential energy of a body in the field of the Earth always is zero, it as easily levitates away from the Earth as fall down.

If according to the action = reaction law, both forces are equal at all times, and there is energy involved in changing their magnitude, an energy which must come from outside the universe or disappear from it, then it isn’t a zero-energy universe.

To be clear, a SCU is something entirely different from Fred Hoyle’s Steady State Universe (SSU) in which matter keeps being created, caused by some magical “creation field”. Just like BBC, for lack of ideas, doesn’t even try to explain the why, the cause of the bang, Hoyle c.s. offer no explanation as to the origin of their creation field, another similarity being the fact that they both regard the universe as an object we can (imagine to) look at from without so both violate the Nix law.

As the mechanics of the bang isn’t thought to be able to produce the ‘observed’ homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, a mechanism had to be invented to patch this, potentially fatal, flaw of BBC: the cosmic inflation, which supposedly is driven by, you may have guessed it already, “a negative-pressure vacuum energy density”. So to fix one problem, we just create a new one, posit the existence of a new kind of energy, give it a fancy name and sit back in adoration of our genius solution.

If in a SCU the mass of particles is both the product and source of their interactions, of forces between them, and the forces on a particle are stronger as they are more precisely equal from all directions, then this automatically, unavoidably results in a homogenous, isotropic universe. However, whereas a BBU is thought to be homogeneous because it is the same cosmic time everywhere, as all galaxies are in more or less the same evolutionary phase, as in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, it isn’t a homogenous universe though it is isotropic. A SCU only is homogeneous in the sense that it looks about the same to observers everywhere, no matter when they live to look at it, provided that they are comparable, physically as are the conditions they look from, like the strength of the gravitational field at the observation post: not all evolutionary phases are accessible to observation by all observers.

If particles in a SCU in the course of their evolution towards higher energies subsequently are part of the gravitational field of a galaxy (or cluster of galaxies), contract to stars to eventually end up in the black-hole-like object at the center of the galaxy or galaxy cluster, then the galaxy or cluster is a self-creating perpetuating machine which at its periphery creates the matter it eventually ‘consumes’ at its center –the mechanics of which will be discussed elsewhere. If mass, if a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then spacetime keeps being created, and contracted at the center of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, at the same time expanding at their periphery.

Notes

Energy and the Uncertainty Principle

Nature’s trick to keep the grand total of everything inside the universe nil is to design energy as a quantity which is neither positive nor negative or both, as something the sign of which alternates in space and time, as a wave phenomenon, something the magnitude of which varies within every cycle. The Planck relation E = h ν then can be interpreted to say that the energy E of a particle is higher as the frequency ν it alternates its energy sign at it is higher: it is as if nature, in an effort to keep the total of everything in the universe zero, tries to un-create what it created a moment before.

As in CM and BBC the (rest) energy of a particle is thought of as a privately owned property it was provided with at its creation, only the cause of interactions, here energy is thought to be a quantity which is positive, always –in which case it cannot be understood why it has a wave character, why there is a wave-particle duality. Though the frequency (ν = E/h) which is associated with its energy cannot be negative, that doesn’t mean that the energy of a particle is positive: this it only would be in a universe where its energy is a privately owned quantity, only the cause of its interactions.

If in a SCU particles express and preserve each other’s mass by exchanging energy, by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, then energy is something which is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next, its observed sign depending on the phase the observing particle is in and their distance. The greater the rest mass of a particle is, the higher the frequency it exchanges energy at, the greater the variation in its rate of change in time, dE/dt is in every cycle (or the greater the variation of its rate of change in space, dE/dx is), the higher its energy E is. In a SCU, therefore, a particle is a wave phenomenon, its particle character associated with its localizability and inertia, its opposition to an acceleration.

If its energy, its rate of change varies within every cycle, then so does the definiteness in its position, or, alternatively, the extent to which spacetime is defined, to which adjacent positions differ physically –i.e., the lengths of rulers and the pace of clocks– in the area where we locate it. A massive particle then is a localized modulation of spacetime, an area the (in)definiteness of which alternately increases and decreases in a wavelike manner in space and time, the sign of its energy varying at a frequency equal to its energy, a frequency which is observed to be smaller farther from its mass center.

The double-slit experiment clearly shows that energy sign of photons alternates since two identical photons can annihilate without liberating any energy, or, as argued, aren’t even emitted in directions where, when emitted, they would annihilate. Since energy can be converted into mass and vice versa, then the same must hold for massive particles so we do indeed find the same kind of interference pattern when instead of photons we use electrons, for example, and instead of a projection screen, a grid of electron detectors.

However as in a SCU electrons owe their properties to all particles within their IH, they cannot on their own decide to annihilate without the cooperation of these particles as their disappearance affects the mass of these particles, so if two electrons annihilate when they meet in counter phase, it is with the consent of their environment so there is energy liberated to compensate their environment energetically for their vanishing act.

If energy is a quantity which is greater as its rate of change dE/dt is greater and this rate varies within every cycle from a positive maximum to a negative maximum to be zero for a short time in between, then it depends on when in the cycle we look at a particle what rate of change, what energy we find it to have, or, when it collides with another particle, what energy it has in that interaction, so we cannot predict its outcome.

If the indefiniteness in the position of the particle is inversely proportional its energy so varies within every cycle, and the time in every cycle its runs through a low-energy phase is shorter as its frequency is higher, then the probability to find it within a smaller area is greater as its frequency is higher: the higher it is, the greater the variation Δ E in its energy is, the greater the probability is to find it within a smaller area.

Unfortunately, the fact that a higher energy implies a greater variation Δ E in its energy is misinterpreted to mean that the energy of the particle is less definite as it is higher. However, unlike in CM where the rest energy of a particle is thought to be a privately owned quantity, only the cause of forces, so the uncertainty in its energy Δ E is associated with random fluctuations due to the emission and absorption of virtual particles, in a SCU the particle exchanges all of its energy in every cycle, so here we can define the energy of a particle to be less indefinite as it is higher, as its position is less indefinite. Indeed, if according to Plank’s law there are increasingly more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies so we need more decimals to distinguish successive levels at higher energies, then a higher energy is a less indefinite energy, another reason being that a frequency only can be higher as it is more regular, as all periods or wavelengths are more exactly of the same length.

So to say that the uncertainty in the energy of a particle is greater at higher energies, as the variation Δ E is greater, is to misunderstand the nature of energy: though the value we measure in repeated experiments varies more as its energy is higher (and measure it for a shorter time Δ t), that doesn’t mean that its magnitude is less definite, that nature itself doesn’t exactly know how much energy the particle has. On the contrary: in a SCU we can say that the (rest) energy of a particle is less definite as it is smaller even if we would be able to measure it more precisely: the lower its energy is, the less it matters whether it exists, where it is and how it moves, how large its energy exactly is, the more it has a virtual, ‘spooky’ character. Conversely, according to the particle the energy of the objects within its IH is smaller as its own energy is smaller –so it observes its universe to be in an earlier, less defined phase, its world having a more virtual character as its own energy is smaller.

Because the mass and charge of a particle in CM is thought to only be the cause of forces, the emission and absorption of virtual particles to transmit forces between them is supposed to be random, here its energy is thought to fluctuate randomly about its ‘textbook’ value, the number used in equations.

In the classical view, the indefiniteness in its position only refers to an uncertainty about its location, something which, in principle, should not be related to its momentum, never mind that we cannot, in practice, measure one without affecting the other.

As a particle in CM only is the source of forces, here it exists always for 100% of the time so there should be no uncertainty in its position or momentum: in the classical view the UP therefore is thought to say that as the measurement of one affects the other, we cannot know both its position and momentum exactly, though the particle at all times does have an exact position and momentum.

However, if in a SCU the rest energy of a particle is greater as its rate of change is greater so varies faster within every cycle, then so does the indefiniteness in its momentum and position –in which case the indefinitenesses are related not because the measurement of one affects the other but because they both are related to its energy.

In CM (and in the present, outdated interpretation of QM) the mass and charge of an electron are thought of as privately owned quantities, only the cause of forces, it is supposed to be a dimensionless point particle since if it would have a finite dimension, the huge electric repulsion between its parts would tear it apart. If not for the fact that its energy fluctuates due to its random emission and absorption of photons and gravitons, in this view both its position and momentum would be perfectly definite even though they cannot both be measured with an arbitrary large accuracy at the same time since the measurement of one changes the magnitude of the other in an unpredictable manner.

In contrast, if in a SCU the energy of a particle, its rate of change varies periodically, within every cycle, then, according to the mass definition here proposed, so does the (in)definiteness in its position, so if we were to take this as a measure of its size, then the electron would alternately expand and contract, at a frequency equal to its energy. In other words, whereas in CM , being only the cause of fields and forces, the electron is kind of pellet, a particle –its wave character a mystery, in a SCU it is a wave phenomenon, its particle-like character consisting of its inertia, its opposition to an acceleration. If as seen from outside its gravitational field, events inside of it are observed to proceed at a slower pace, as if spacetime becomes more viscous as the field is stronger, then this gives it the tangibility we associate with particles. Alternatively, if according to the UP it requires energy to reduce (the indefiniteness in) the distance between two particles, then this manifests itself as a counterforce, so the UP in effect acts like a repulsive force which makes that we don’t sink through the floor.

In CM the energy of particles is a privately owned quantity so should fluctuate randomly, here it is a mystery why these fluctuations do in fact obey the UP, why the deviation in its energy Δ E from its textbook value should be inversely proportional to the time Δ t it has that deviant energy. Though it may seem reasonable that a violation of conservation laws may last longer as the violation is smaller, the question remains how its environment can know when to replete an energy deficit of a particle or the particle knows when to get rid of excess energy. This would require that particles at all times are informed about the state of their neighbors so they can determine when to emit a virtual particle in what direction and what energy to give it: if in that case we can no longer ask which of the particles causes the transmission, then we have to reject causality, the idea that c refers to a velocity instead of being a property of spacetime

In contrast, as in a SCU the energy of particles is the product and effect of their interactions, here a particle is essentially a wave phenomenon: the UP in fact is equivalent to the Planck relation which defines the energy of a particle to be greater as its rate of change is greater.

In CM a particle property is a quantity which is unchangeable, independent of the interactions the particle is involved in, a privately owned quantity, only the cause of interactions so here the particle is thought of as an objectively observable object, so here only is the expression of a property which depends on the observer.

As in a SCU its properties are cause and effect of all interactions the particle is involved in, as an interacting, observing particle contributes to its energy, here we can only speak about its observed properties: as this depends on the mass of the observing particle their distance and motion, here the energy of a particle is an observer-dependent quantity, a relative quantity. This isn’t to say that its mass in a SCU differs from that in CM, only that while in CM it is thought of as an unchangeable quantity, something which BFPD can be observed, measured even from without the universe, in a SCU it is a variable quantity the magnitude of which depends on its interactions –though we obviously find the same value as a measurement of its mass is executed in the same conditions. So whereas in CM mass is thought of as a constant, God-given quantity, in a SCU it is something a particle acquires in the course of a more or less gradual evolution.

If when particles can most efficiently exchange energy when they are in counter phase so the energy increase of one particle coincides with the energy decrease of the other, and they ‘see’ each other only in counter phase at distances equal to a half-integer number of the wavelength they exchange energy in (a wavelength which increases with their distance) then they can only be in equilibrium at such distances. As the distance between massive particles tends to assume discrete, quantized values (the more so as their exchange wavelength is smaller, as their energy is higher) so their distance tends to change with an integer number of that wavelength, the energy involved in such change tends to be quantized.

Since the definiteness in the energy and position of particles varies within every cycle, we cannot know in what phase two particles are in as they collide, interact, we cannot predict what comes out of the interaction, though if we repeat the experiment many times, we find a probability distribution of results.

As we cannot know what phase particles are in as they collide in some experiment, we cannot predict its outcome, though if we repeat the experiment many times over, we find a probability distribution of results corresponding to all possible phases they may interact in. If a particle in every cycle repeats lower energy states, rates of change, and a muon (a heavy electron) for example, for a short time in every cycle actually has the energy of an electron, looks, acts like an electron, then it is easier to fathom why fundamental particles can decay into other particles species or appear to have a mixed identity.

Notes

The energy of the vacuum

According to the UP, the energy content in some area cannot be zero and stay nil, its rate of change be zero, so space cannot be and remain completely empty. The UP therefore is thought to mean that spacetime is filled to the brim with virtual particles, particle-antiparticle pairs and photons which continuously appear out of the vacuum, to disappear again after a time inversely proportional to their energy –though it doesn’t say anything about their density, how fast after the disappearance of one particle pair a new pair can pop up, how much vacuum energy space contains.

Since the UP associates a higher energy with a smaller volume, the energy of these virtual particles is believed to be higher as we look at smaller scales –which if true would mean that a volume of space would contain less energy than any of its parts. The smaller the scale we look at, the higher the energy of the virtual particles, and, as energy is a source of gravity so curves space, the more violent spacetime is thought to be contorted by the extremely rapid appearance and disappearance of the virtual particles (a phenomenon referred to as quantum foam):

“ … quantum physics predicts that all of space must be filled with electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations (a.k.a. the zero-point field) creating a universal sea of zero-point energy. The density of this energy depends critically on where the frequency of the zero-point 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 l_P (~10^-35 m), it is argued that the zero-point fluctuations must cease at the corresponding ν_P. If that is the case, then the zero-point energy density would be 108 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun.”

If, as argued, there can be no minimum length in the universe so the Planck length has no special significance, then the energy density of ‘empty’ space would in fact be infinite.

Though this vacuum energy, however large, should have notable gravitational effects, none are observed: Gerard ‘t Hooft:

“ Martin 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, and he even went swinging with the stick which would beat the theory to a pulp. 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 which still is very much in the spotlight. As far as I’m concerned, this problem has to be postponed till we understand the theory of gravity better.”

Robert B Laughlin:

“Real light, like real quantum-mechanical sound, differs from its idealized Newtonian counterpart in containing energy even when it is stone cold. According to the principle of relativity, this energy should have generated mass, and this, in turn should have generated gravity. We have no idea why it does not, so we deal with the problem the way a government might, namely by simply declaring empty space not to gravitate.”

The fact that no gravitational effects are observed has led some physicists to doubt QM itself: Lee Smolin:

"Like ‘t Hooft, much of his [ Roger Penrose] work in the last two decades is motivated by his conviction that quantum mechanics is wrong."

The present confusion originates in the widespread habit of physicists imagine to look at the universe from without combined with the classical, outdated idea that the energy of a particle is a privately owned property, only the cause of interactions so we don’t need to specify with respect to which observer a virtual particle has some particular energy (or what lifetime it has), as if the virtual particles exist no matter whether they actually interact or not. Indeed, only in that case space would be uniformly filled with virtual particles.

If, as will be discussed, a collection of particles can only contract to mass concentrations, to stars and (clusters of) galaxies if they make their vicinity inhospitable for massive objects to be at rest at and from there oppose the contraction, then space between the mass concentrations becomes emptier as they contract.

If to a particle positions are more equal physically over a larger area in space as it is emptier, farther from masses, if it cannot have a well-defined position in empty space, then it cannot have, express and preserve its mass in empty pace, be and stay at rest far from masses.

So instead of saying that for energy to be able to act as a source of gravity, it must have a well-defined position to be able to exert force, in a SCU we can as well say that to have energy and express it gravitationally, i.e., to act like mass, its position must be well-defined. So if particles cannot have a well-defined position far from masses they cannot have a high (rest) energy in empty space, so here it depends on where we look how much energy space contains: the farther from masses, the emptier space is, the less energy it contains.

If like the price of real estate, the energy of the virtual particles depends on their location, on the definiteness in their position, positions are less indefinite near masses, then space contains more energy near masses, as the gravitational field is stronger, as space is more defined, i.e., as adjacent points are more different, physically, as the length of standard rulers and pace of clocks vary more from one point to the other. In that case we can identify the virtual particles the UP says must pop into and out of existence as being part of the gravitational field of the massive objects, the manifestation thereof. If we are to have a physical space –as opposed to a mathematical space where all points are defined to be equivalent except for their coordinate number– so the length of rulers and pace of clocks varies slightly from one point to the next, then space itself must contain energy –which is to say, its density must vary locally. In other words, whereas in the looking-over-God’s-shoulders-at-His-creation-mode space is thought of as something which has objectively observable properties, implying a uniform distribution of virtual particles –leading to absurd energy densities, in a SCU its density varies locally, is a relative quantity, depending on the observer, on his distance and motion.

If the energy of particles, its rate of change varies within every cycle, then so does the indefiniteness in their position, so if this indefiniteness periodically for a short time exceeds the dimensions of the object the particles are part of, then they in every cycle for a short time act themselves like the virtual particles of the object’s gravitational field. Alternatively, if a varying rate of change dE/dt (or dE/dx) means a varying wavelengths the particles interact in, then so does the energy of the ‘nodes’ of the interference patterns these waves form, nodes which act like the virtual particles of the field. However, as they have a volatile character, as their energy is low, not well-defined or varies more or less continuously with the field strength, their existence cannot be observed, deducted from spectral lines lines like real matter which absorbs and emits energy in well-defined frequencies. That doesn’t mean that these virtual particles don’t interact with radiation, only that such interactions are unobservable –so the question is whether these virtual particles somehow may account for the effects ascribed to dark matter, the existence and properties of which are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter.

However this may be, if, in a SCU, particles exist to each other only if, as far and as long they interact, then virtual particles can become real ones when they manage set up a permanent energy exchange, forcing each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance. The shorter their distance is, the less indefinite it is, the higher or less indefinite the frequency is they exchange energy at, the higher the energy of one article is according to the other –whereas the farther apart they are, the lower the frequency they exchange energy at, the more they have a virtual character to one another. As a single particle exchanges energy in many different frequencies with particles at different distances, its rest energy is the sum, the superposition of all these frequencies, so this is how particles can create themselves, each other without violating any conservation law.

The God particle

As in CM the mass of elementary particles only is the cause of interactions, its origin is mystery: however, since everyone agrees that ‘all mass is interaction’, one has invented a cause, a new kind of particle, the Higgs boson and associated Higgs field the elementary particles can interact with to acquire mass.

To posit the existence of a Higgs field which permeates all of space is to say that the universe has particular properties as a whole, i.e., that the universe has been created by some outside intervention. By inventing a Higgs field we just shift the question as to the origin of mass of fundamental particle to that of the origin of the Higgs field/particle, by what it is caused itself, to what the higgs particle owes its mass to, so to explain this, we obviously need to invent a pre-Higgs particle, which to explain requires the existence of a pre-pre Higgs particle –ad infinitum:

”In a nutshell the Higgs theory is as follows. Electrons and quarks have no intrinsic mass. Instead, they acquire mass by interacting with an invisible field which permeates all of space, like the ether of the past. It is the Higgs field which gives these particles their mass. how much mass they eventually get depends on how strong the particles feel the Higgs field –how strongly they couple to the field. The photon doesn’t interact at all with the field, so it remains massless. Quarks couple stronger to the field than electrons: the top quark feels the Higgs field most of all and has a mass of about a hundred thousand times that of the electron. The W- and Z particles, which carry the weak force, also acquire an very considerable mass by coupling to the Higgs field.”

So here we have another absurdity: to explain the mass of quarks and electrons the ‘theory’ insists that the Higgs particle does have an intrinsic mass –a mass the theory obviously cannot predict, but is estimated to lie between the 100 and 200 GeV/c² to be in accordance with other observations. However, if ‘all mass is interaction’, then the Higgs particle cannot have an intrinsic mass, so we can as well say that the Higgs particle owes its mass to interactions with … the fundamental particles it is supposed to give mass.

Indeed, it is unclear how a particle, before it has mass, can interact with the Higgs particle or field to acquire that mass, what property enables it to interact with the Higgs field, how it acquired that as yet unknown property, and how the Higgs and the particles it is supposed to give mass, can decide how heavy they are going to be when even clever physicists cannot predict, calculate, explain why the fundamental particles have the mass they have.

The Higgs particle, then, is invented to keep the illusion intact that the mass one particle has according to the other doesn’t depend on their distance and motion, that it is a privately owned quantity, only the cause of forces: that mass is an absolute, unchangeable quantity which BFPD can be measured even from without the universe, the delusion that it is legitimate, scientifically, to imagine to look over God’s shoulders at His creation and do so with impunity: indeed, the name ‘God particle’ reveals much about the sad state of affairs in present physics.

By insisting to explain what essentially is a non-causal phenomena in terms of cause and effect, we create pseudo problems which obviously cannot be solved.

Leon M. Lederman:

“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.”

The recent experimental confirmation of the existence of a particle which has a mass which lies within the mass interval estimated for the Higgs particle therefore doesn’t really explain the origin of the mass of other particles.

In a SCU the origin of mass is obvious: here particles in every cycle create and ‘un-create’ each other over and over again, so if we could cut off this exchange, they’d pop out of existence as definitive as a picture on a TV screen vanishes when we pull the plug.

As in BBC particle properties only are the cause of interactions, it is unclear how the particles know what properties to assume at the bang and what physical laws to obey –as if there has been a calculation preceding their creation. In contrast, in a universe where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions physical laws obviously evolve together with the particles the behavior of which they are the expression of, so here these laws, rules of behavior are communicated over all of spacetime as the particles exchange energy to keep existing to each other.

In CM the mass of particles is a privately owned quantity, so a particle can be ascribed a surface separating its mass from its effect on the environment, on space, so here space is thought of as something which, though curvable by mass, has additional properties independent from mass so here what happens at one point is less compulsory related to what happens elsewhere than it is in a SCU where the continuous energy exchange between particles knits different points much tighter together to a spacetime continuum.

However, as present physics still conceives of the universe as an object which BFPD can be inspected from without, which has properties as a whole, most physicists believe that there exists a minimum distance in the universe:

‘t Hooft:

“The most radical view [...] is that space and time only exist as a separate set of points; particles can only be at those points but not in between. Actually, 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?”

.

As argued, the fact that energy is quantified doesn’t mean that there is a limit to the size of the packet: though if energy is quantified, so are distances, if there’s no upper limit to the energy of particles can have, then there can be no lower limit to the distance between particles. Like the energy content of space, the energy of virtual particles, it depends on where we look how well- or ill-defined spacetime is somewhere.

Veltman:

“In Einstein’s theory of gravitation space and time play an overwhelming, dominant role. The movement of matter through space is determined by the properties of space. In this theory of gravitation matter defines space, and the movement of matter through space then is determined by the structure of space. A grand and imposing view, but despite the enormous authority of Einstein most physicists no longer adhere to this idea. Einstein spent the latter part if his life trying to incorporate electromagnetism into this picture, thus trying to describe electric and magnetic fields as properties of spacetime. This became known as his quest for a unified theory. In this he never really succeeded, but he was not a man given to easily abandon a point of view. However, this view became subsequently untenable, because next to gravitation and electromagnetism other forces came to light. It is not realistic to think that these can be explained as properties of spacetime. The era of that type of unified theory is gone.”

.

This, however, only holds if the seemingly different forces cannot be unified, if they each are powered by their own, independent source, in a BBU, not in a SCU. As in a BBU particles only are the cause of forces so a force is either attractive or repulsive, to explain any equilibrium between particles we need two qualitatively different, opposite forces –forces which, being independent by definition, never can be unified even in principle.

In the present, causal interpretation of QM, charged particles are thought to transmit the electromagnetic force by exchanging virtual photons, whereas gravitons mediate gravity. In this view, a charged particle has two independent sources powering two kinds of forces, its mass and electric charge: though they are thought to be independent quantities, its electric charge contributes to its energy, its mass.

However, if the rest energy of a particle changes when it emits or absorbs gravitons (photons), then so does the magnitude of its charge (mass) –in which case mass and charge cannot be the independent, qualitatively different quantities they are thought to be but must be intrinsically related, be different manifestation of a single quantity. Indeed, if the mass of an excited atom decreases as it emits a photon and the mass of the atom absorbing the photon increases as much, then the photon has effectively transported mass.

If when the photon transmission changes gravity between the atoms and all objects within their IH so does the job the graviton is supposed to do, then what do we need gravitons for?

Can nature really be so inefficient as to create mass-challenged particles, a Higgs field to provide them with mass, and gravitons to enable them to express that mass?

If when we change the energy sign of a particle, we change its charge sign, and particles express and at the same time preserve each other’s mass by alternately lending and borrowing each other the energy to exist, if in one phase the energy of a particle increases –let’s call this the phase in which its energy sign is positive– and its energy sign becomes negative as it decreases so the sign of its energy alternates, then the charge sign one particle has according to the other just refers to their relative energy sign. If when the universe would contain a single electron, it cannot be electrically charged, if any property lives within interactions between particles so is relative quantity, then the energy or charge sign one particle has according to the other depends on the phase they are in relative to one another.

Though one might argue that if the electron has a negative and a proton a positive charge, always, the electron doesn’t fall on and stick to the proton because the UP prevents this –unless the environment supplies the energy needed to keep them on top of each other like in a neutron star; we can as well say that the UP states that a force between particles cannot be either attractive or repulsive, always, agreeing with Newton’s action = reaction law, and hence their charge cannot be either positive or negative, always.

If the phase two particles see each other in, the sign of the charge / energy of the other particle depends on their distance, then every time their distance changes with a half wavelength (the wavelength they exchange energy at), the force between them alternates from being attractive to repulsive to attractive and so on, both forces increasing as we bring them closer together, increasing their mass/charge as we do. Obviously, as both particles owe their properties to all particles within their IH, they will, when released, choose that distance at which they are in equilibrium, moving apart, as if they repulse, or, when pulled out of equilibrium and released, move towards each other, as if they attract. If the magnitude of the –ambivalent– force between them depends on their energy and vice versa, then we don’t need qualitatively different forces to explain any equilibrium.

Obviously, because we (CM, BBC) have decided that the (rest) mass is a quantity particles have been provided with at their creation so remains unchanged till the end of time, we have to conceive of charge similarly as a constant quantity, as something which is qualitatively different, independent from their mass –in which case space, though curvable by mass, would have additional properties unrelated to mass, energy.

If any two particles exchange energy at a single frequency, flip their energy sign at the same time, they cannot notice such sign change, so from the point of view of the particles their charge or energy sign doesn’t seem to alternate at all –as if there’s no charge at all. Since particles only can be in equilibrium (for however short a time) at distances of (2n + 1)/2 times the wavelength they exchange energy in (n being an integer), their distance is quantified as is the energy to go from one equilibrium distance to the next.

String Theory By insisting that the mass and charge of particles, of whatever kind, are qualitatively different, independent quantities, only the cause of forces, we in fact declare them to be un-unifiable. String Theory (ST), designed to unify forces which it insist are either attractive or repulsive, always, therefore is a waste of time: its efforts are as futile as trying to fit seamlessly square pegs in round holes while insisting that the pegs remain square and the holes round.

However beautiful its mathematics may be, if you start with invalid assumptions then any calculation you perform is guaranteed to produce invalid conclusions –which if not recognized as false, are bound to spawn new, evermore artificial, far-fetched hypotheses. I cannot escape the impression that the truth of physical theories presently is measured more by the complexity of its equations than the validity of its presuppositions: if you cannot really explain something, you can always try (publish or perish) to confuse matters, impress the scientific community with the complexity of your work, thereby making the misconception at the root of the problem ever more respectable, the problem more unsolvable.

Though one might object and say that if you flip the charge sign of a particle or the magnitude of its charge, this causes electromagnetic phenomena like radiation (which it does indeed), the point is that though the energy/charge sign of particles alternates as they exchange energy to power each other’s properties, this exchange, preserving the status quo, is unobservable as long as they are in equilibrium. Only when things change, when their equilibrium is disturbed, in an experiment or due to the inclination of mass to keep creating itself, do we observe a net energy transmission, electromagnetic phenomena.

As CM assumes that the charge of particles is a privately owned quantity, the electric force to be so strong, objects tend to be electrically neutral, so in this view the only force between galaxies, say, is (weak) gravity. However, if in a SCU particles express and preserve their mass by exchanging energy, alternating their charge sign as they do, then we can as well say that it is their (alternating) charge which powers (and is powered by) their mass, the force which anchors galaxies at their positions, a force I have called ‘strong gravity’, as opposed to ‘weak gravity’, which refers to the self-creating character of mass in a SCU.

Notes

‘For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies …’

Albert Einstein

However, Roger Penrose, in The Road to reality: a complete guide to the laws of the universe (2004), p 753:

“One of the most important of these [ideas] was Einstein’s significant dependence on Mach’s principle as a guide to his eventual discovery of general relativity. Mach’s principle asserts that physics should be defined entirely in terms of the relation of one body to another, and that the very notion of a background space should be abandoned. Later analysis of Einstein’s theory, showed that Mach’s principle is not incorporated by general relativity, however, irrespective of the motivational significance of Mach’s idea.”

The law of conservation of energy .. states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. [..] .. energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

The Self-Creation Mechanism and Relativity Theory

As the BBC scenario constitutes a violation of the law according to which energy is something which cannot be created nor destroyed, it obviously can never explain its origin, so BBC is not scientific theory but (bad) science fiction, describing an imaginary universe which has nothing to do whatsoever with the universe we actually live in.

As gravity is an attractive force so it takes work, energy for particles to contact, in a BBU where the mass of particles is a privately owned quantity, the mass of a cloud of particles is greater than that of the object they contract to, the energy difference supposedly radiated away.

In a BBU it is entirely unclear why particles would want to contract if their behavior doesn’t change the total energy content of the universe (that is, before the discovery invention of dark energy –which is another violation of conservation laws, never mind the UP which is misunderstood to say that space is filled to the brim with virtual particles).

If in a SCU the mass of particles is effect and cause of the force between them, and the force increases as they contract, then there’s mass created as they do, and, as argued, spacetime created between the mass concentrations. The more particles contract within a smaller volume, the more their universes overlap, the more identical they become, the less freedom they have to move as they like, the more coordinated their behavior, the more coherent their oscillations must be to fit within a smaller space, the more their exchange frequencies converge to higher frequencies, to within a smaller frequency range. As according to Planck’s law there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher temperatures, at higher energies, a particle cluster heats up as it contracts, the frequencies it exchanges and radiates energy at following the blackbody radiation spectrum. The more massive, the higher its mass density is, the higher its temperature, the greater the part the cluster radiates energy within a smaller frequency range, at a higher frequency. The more massive and compact a particle cluster is, the higher its temperature, the more energy it takes to increase the temperature of the cluster with one degree, so Planck’s law in fact prevents the energy of particles or the strength of forces between them to become infinite, even though there’s no limit to the value they actually can assume.

If the action = reaction law may be interpreted to say that the force on particles from the center of their own cluster only can increase as much as it increases from the opposite direction, from the outer layers of their own cluster –and from clusters in the environment, then particles only can contract, evolve to higher energies if they contract to clusters everywhere, if the clusters contract in concert, to clusters of clusters etcetera. In that case we might expect a fractal-like mass distribution: observations indeed indicate that the distribution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies is scale invariant:

“ .. if we didn’t know what population [galaxies or galaxy clusters] was being described in the catalogue we would not be able to find the answer from an analysis of their correlation”

.

In a SCU particles therefore contribute as much to the mass of the clusters as the clusters contribute to the mass of the particles, so here particles indeed don’t causally precede stars and galaxies, nor the other way around.

The heavier and more compact the clusters are, the sharper, the more abrupt the field strength changes at a shorter distance from the surface of the clusters (as measured with a ruler outside their field, as calculated from their positions relative to surrounding stars or galaxies) and the smaller, the flatter the field gradient (the rate of change of the field strength with distance) becomes nearer the cluster. The flatter the field gradient somewhere is, the more all positions are equal energetically to a test particle, the less defined its position is in that area, the less it can express its mass, the less it can be at rest in that area.

By preventing particles to be at rest in the vicinity of clusters and from there oppose their contraction, the clusters facilitate their contraction. Whereas before their contraction, the distribution of the particles is more uniform as their mass is smaller, their interactions weaker, their position less defined, on contracting spacetime becomes more defined near the clusters, to become emptier, less defined in between. The flatter the field gradient between the clusters, the less definite the position of a particle in that area is, the less it can express and preserve its mass, the less it can be at rest: the emptier spacetime is somewhere, the more inhospitable it is to massive particles. The more massive and compact the clusters are, the emptier spacetime is in between, the more it acts like an energy barrier to massive particles, the higher their velocity must be to cross such area, the more energy it takes to move away from the cluster: the flatter the field gradient, the emptier space is, the more forcefully it opposes the penetration of masses.

Clocks and rulers

It takes more energy to change the distance between two masses when they are close together than the same displacement when far apart, so if we define the unit length as the displacement of a massive test particle which takes a certain quantity of energy and use this to construct a ruler, then such ruler would shrink in the vicinity of a massive object, in a gravitational field, as seen from some distance, where the field is weak. Indeed, if a gravitational field is an area of contracted space, then the stronger the field at the ruler and the weaker it is at the observation post –the greater the distance is from which the observer looks at the ruler, the smaller the ruler looks like.

If a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, distance, and clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant, then a clock is observed to run slower as the gravitational field at the clock is stronger and weaker at the observer –a phenomenon called gravitational redshift. Reversely, an observer or observing particle sitting in a strong field sees a clock run at a faster pace, ‘shift to blue’, so to say, as the field at the clock is weaker. If the particle would be able to increase its own mass, the field it looks from, then it would see processes in stars proceed at a faster pace –if not for the fact that, in a SCU, the mass of the observing particle cannot increase without a simultaneous, proportional mass increase of all objects within its interaction horizon. However, if in a SCU a mass increase of objects is accompanied by a proportional increase of their distance so one effect would compensate the other, then the mass increase of the particle wouldn’t affect the observed pace of the clock, the observed redshift of objects.

If in a SCU mass, a gravitational field, is an area of contracted spacetime, then the distance between two objects as measured within their field, with a tape measurer from the mass center of one object to that of the other, therefore can be much larger than their distance as measured from without their field, i.e., as calculated from their positions relative to surrounding stars.

If to a massive particle in an infinitely large but otherwise empty universe all positions are identical, physically, then its world can as well be said to be infinitesimal: as it cannot exist, have mass if there’s nothing to act upon, space cannot exist without mass and vice versa. Unlike in a mathematical space where all points are identical but for their coordinate numbers, in physics we can only speak about a space if it is physically different at different places, if the lengths of rulers and the pace of clocks at adjacent positions differs, however slightly –keeping in mind that the observed length and pace also depends on the observer.

If it is the mass of an object which makes positions in its vicinity different, and in a SCU a particle has no surface separating some cause, content from its effects so we cannot indicate where a particle ends and space begins, where its mass ends and its associated gravitational field begins –so mass itself is an area of contracted spacetime, then the creation of massenergy is the creation of spacetime.

In contrast, as in a BBU the mass of particles is a privately owned quantity, independent from their distance, is localized within a spherical surface separating the particle’s mass from its effects in the environment, here particles are fremdkörper in an alien environment, as if, though space according to GR is curvable by mass, it has additional properties which have nothing to do with the absence or presence of particles, if it is merely something which is necessary only to accommodate, ‘park’ particles in.

The expansion of a BBU, the receding motion of galaxy clusters therefore is thought to be the continuation of the motion, the kinetic energy their particles for some mysterious reason got at the bang, so here the expansion isn’t so much a creation of spacetime but is rather the increase of something which comes for free –a notion which had to be reconsidered as the redshift of galaxies wasn’t observed to decrease due to gravity between them, necessitating the invention of dark energy –so space doesn’t, after all, come for free.

The less definite the position, the distance and direction a force acts from, the weaker it is: the smaller the mass of particles is, the weaker the force between them is, the less definite their position is, the more homogeneously they are distributed, the more all points of space are identical, the less defined space is. The smaller the mass of a particle, the smaller its IH is, the less definite spacetime is to the particle, the earlier the evolutionary phase it observes its universe to be in, the ‘younger’ it is itself; the higher its energy, the higher it observes the mass of other objects to be, the larger its IH is, its universe, the later the phase it observes its universe in and the older it is itself.

If a particle simultaneously exchanges energy in many frequencies, if the energy it has according to a nearby observer is a superposition of many exchange frequencies so contains contributions associated with different evolutionary phases, contributions which in a SCU do not originate from the past, but sustain its present energy in real time, then in this universe processes in stars and galaxies must be part of the creation of particles, of the design of particle properties. This is in contrast to the Big Bang tale which implicitly suggests that there has been a preceding calculation as to what particle properties, physical laws and constants of nature might produce a universe –which is hard to do as long as there’s no calculator to perform calculations with.

If there’s no school for a universe to learn how to create itself then the creation of particles must be a trial-and-error process –agreeing with a SCU where particles are as much the product as the source of interactions –so in this universe particles don’t causally precede stars and galaxies nor vice versa. So whereas in a BBU where bricks suddenly pop up, ready-made to specifications the origin of which is unclear, to subsequently start forming edifices the properties and dimensions, the blueprints of which already are embedded like DNA in the properties of the bricks, in a SCU the bricks are baked, their properties selected in the building process, the bricks fired as the building takes form.

Due to this two-way traffic of information the particles which are to form stars and galaxies can ‘learn’ what properties to assume –self-destructive behavior will lead to … self-destruction so leaves no trace– how to behave, what physical laws to obey to keep existing, to actually form stars and galaxies.

If the rest energy or –frequency of a particle is a superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with every other particle within its interaction horizon, and we can associate the long-distance, low-frequency contributions to its energy with early evolutionary phases, then its energy contains contributions from objects in all possible phases of their evolution. If in a SCU this two-way traffic between objects which are separated in space and time is instantaneous, then the energy the particle (or object) has according to a nearby observer is maintained by its exchange over all of space and time. In other words, whereas in a BBU any influence on the particle is thought to originate in some event in the past, in a SCU there is an instantaneous communication between objects in all possible phases of their evolution.

Because of this real-time communication, in a SCU objects and events are much stronger related physically, spacetime point much tighter knitted together than in a BBU where objects don’t have to exchange energy to keep existing, so this is the answer to ‘t Hooft’s question “how do we then explain how these points are related to form the known space and time?”

Locking arms

If a particle exchanges energy at many different frequencies with all other particles within its interaction horizon, then is rest energy or –frequency is the sum, the quantum superposition of all these different frequencies times the number of exchanges in every frequency.

Let’s suppose we have a number of identical particles:

D ----------------------C----------------- A --- B ------------------------------------------- E

Though in the ‘looking-over-God’s-shoulders-at-His-creation’ mode, the particles can be said to have the same mass, as in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them, here we can define the mass two particles have according to each other to be equal to frequency they exchange energy at. If this frequency is higher as their distance is smaller, less indefinite, then particles can create one another, increase each other’s mass as they near one another from infinity.

The energy exchange A ↔ C, D and E, and B ↔ A, C, D and E all contribute to the A ↔ B exchange, to their mass, as does the A ↔ B exchange to the energy of C, D and E etcetera. As the position of A is less definite according to D than it is to C or B, the A ↔ D exchange proceeds in longer wavelengths than the C ↔ A and B ↔ A exchanges. So if we take the wavelength of their exchange as a measure of the indefiniteness in the position one particle has according to the other, of the size of the area where they localize each other, then B locates A in a much smaller area than D does.

Instead of saying that according to D, A’s rest energy is much smaller than it is according to B because the force between A and D is smaller as their distance is greater, we can as well say that according to D time passes at a slower pace at A than it does according to B, so if we associate a lower energy with an earlier evolutionary phase, then D sees A in an earlier evolutionary phase than B does.

Robert B. Laughlin:

”By far the most important effect of phase organization [for example, a phase transition of a gas to a fluid or solid] is to cause objects to exist. This point is subtle and easily overlooked, since we are accustomed to thinking of solidification in terms of packing of Newtonian spheres. Atoms are not Newtonian spheres, however, but ethereal quantum-mechanical entities lacking that most central of all properties of an object –an identifiable position. This is why attempts to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms always results in nonsense statements such as their being neither here nor there but simultaneously everywhere. It is aggregation into large objects that makes a Newtonian description of the atoms meaningful, not the reverse. One might compare this phenomenon with a yet-to-be-filmed Stephen Spielberg movie in which a huge number of little ghosts lock arms and, in doing so, become corporeal. For this to occur, their number must be stupendously large.”.

Indeed: particles only become real when they ‘lock arms’, when they keep locking arms, that is, when by starting to exchange energy, they start to exist to each other, to express and at the same time preserve each other’s properties, forcing each other to obey the same physical laws, rules of behavior. In contrast, in the ‘looking-over-God’s-shoulders-at-His-creation’ attitude of present physics, the existence of particles, virtual or real, just is posited without specifying with respect to what they exist, as if their properties, their energy are absolute, interaction-independent quantities, as if, once created, they would keep existing even when isolated from interacting.

However, in this, the accepted view, there’s a fly in the ointment:

”There is however one conceptual problem in GRT [General Relativity Theory], to which we should direct our attention: the definition of density. In pre-relativistic times we were accustomed to define the density of a quantity by the ratio of the amount of this quantity and of the volume element in which it is contained. This ratio or, for spatially varying quantities its limiting value, when the size of the volume element approaches zero, could be considered as the local density value of the corresponding quantity. According to the concept of GRT, however, the size of a volume element depends on the metric and thus on the distribution of matter or energy in the surrounding space. Thus there is no longer a unique definition of density in the conventional sense. But Einstein easily found a way out of this situation. As a local quantity, which should enter the field equations, he defined the density in the ’tangential space’, that means the density value one would measure, if all the surrounding masses were removed to infinity. In this way the problem of a unique definition is solved, but at the cost of another one. Calculation of the integral of the so defined density over the region of an extended mass distribution, the result is different from what we would get by counting the number of atoms and multiplying it with their characteristic mass. For the example of a spherically symmetric mass distribution, for which the exact solution of the Einstein equations is known, to the first approximation the difference is just the value of potential energy, that means the binding energy, which according to Newtonian theory has to be supplied, to distribute the mass into infinite space against the action of gravitation. [..] But which of the two different values of the mass determines the gravitational action to the outside? Is it, as Einstein said, that ’the inertia of mass is enhanced, when ponderable matter is accumulated in its surrounding’ (and according to the principle of equivalence also the gravitational mass), remains it unaffected or does it eventually decrease?”

In stating that “the inertia of mass is enhanced when ponderable matter is accumulated in its surrounding”, Einstein fails to follow this idea through to its ultimate conclusion: that mass, in a self-creating universe must be as much the product as the source of such interactions.

In other words, if all the masses surrounding an object were removed to infinity, then, unlike a BBU, in a SCU it would lose its mass itself and vanish as well, so the energy density would become nil: the mass of an object therefore isn’t just enhanced –which is like ‘somewhat pregnant’– but is created when “ponderable matter is accumulated in its surrounding” –that is, the “ponderable matter” only acquires mass, becomes ponderable on nearing the object. So the misunderstanding comes from the essentially religious idea that the mass of an object is a mortgage free, privately owned quantity.

In a SCU a particle would lose all of its mass and vanish if we’d remove all other masses to infinity or, equivalently, if we could cut off its energy exchange. If the mass of particles is cause and effect of their interactions, then “… inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies…” indeed, so unlike a BBU, in a SCU there’s no need for intermediary Higgs or, aptly, revealingly named ‘God-particles’ to explain the origin of mass, nor is it a mystery why the mass of an object equals its inertia.

Physical laws

If in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its interaction horizon, its own universe, and the universes of two particles A and B overlap less, what happens at A affects B less as they are farther part, then we can say that particle properties and the physical laws they obey are the same everywhere, and it is their distance which reduces the effects of what happens at A on B.

We can also say that these laws and properties diverge, become more different qualitatively as they are farther apart and the particles therefore interact weaker, as if from the point of view of a nail, say, a thing which acts like a magnet at short distances metamorphoses into a cork at a larger distances.

The farther apart, the less the physical laws at A apply to B, the less compulsive what happens at A affects B, the slower A and B see each other evolve, the ‘earlier’ the phase they see each other in. The smaller, the less definite the energy of particles is, the greater their freedom of behavior relative to each other, the less compulsory or less definite the laws ruling their behavior are or the less definite their properties are, their position and behavior, the less it matters how far apart they exactly are or what their relative velocity exactly is.

If particles are cause and effect of their interactions with everything in their environment, then they become more identical as their universes overlap, coincide more, as they contract. The more particles contract within a smaller space, the more identical they become, the more strictly or compulsory they force each other to obey the same rules of behavior, the stronger the –ambivalent, i.e., attractive and repulsive– force between them is, the higher their energy is. The smaller the areas are where the forces on each of the particles are equal from all directions, the less indefinite their position is, the more coordinated their behavior is to fit inside a smaller space –which is to say, the more coordinated their energy exchange is, the more their exchange frequencies converge to a higher value, within a smaller frequency range.

The smaller the mass of a particle is, the more all positions within a larger area are more equal to the particle, energetically, the less definite its position is, the less defined spacetime is to the particle, the smaller the energy it observes objects within its universe to have, and, if a lower energy corresponds to an earlier evolutionary phase, the younger its universe looks like to the particle and the younger it is itself.

As the lifetime of a virtual particle is inversely proportional to its energy, an infinitesimal energy would mean an infinite lifetime, so a particle of infinitesimal energy has always has existed and will always exist, though as the effects of its presence also are infinitesimal so it is unobservable, we can as well say that it doesn’t exist.

If a particle has a more virtual character and is observed to evolve at a slower pace as its energy is smaller and/or it is more distant, then it would take an infinite time to evolve from a zero energy to an energy &gr; 0, so to an observing particle time can be said to stand still at the border of its interaction horizon, its universe –which corresponds to an infinite redshift of objects at the ‘rim’ of its universe. However, as in a SCU energy is a relative quantity, if the observed mass of a particle depends on the mass of the observing particle and their distance so is different to different observers, then we cannot say that its energy is zero or infinitesimal.

So whereas in a BBU all object live in the exact same universe and have an objectively observable existence, an Über-Universal kind of reality, in a SCU the universe of an object is limited, its appearance depending on its own energy –an energy which is a relative, observer-dependent quantity.

If particle properties differ slightly from one place to the next or are observed to be less definite at larger distances, if they don’t live in the exact same universe so time is a somewhat different quantity at different places, then it is not entirely correct to say that time passes at a slower pace at larger distances, as if it is something which is the same, passes at the exact same pace everywhere –as it does in BBC, where it is called ‘cosmic time’.

The concept of ‘cosmic time’, the essentially religious idea that (ignoring relativistic effects) time passes at the same pace everywhere refers to the illusion that the universe is something which has properties and evolves as a whole, that it lives in a time continuum not of its own making –that it has been created by some outside interference.

If a photon emitted by a distant galaxy shifts to red as it leaves the gravitational field of the galaxy, then it loses information: though it shifts to blue on penetrating the field of the observer’s galaxy or planet, then this information increase is added to it by the receiving galaxy. While in a BBU we can record on film an event at a distant galaxy and can see what actually happened there, recover the lost information by playing the film back at an accelerated pace, this is impossible in a SCU. In a SCU we cannot really regard the photon as a particle which physically moves in space, from A to B, that it loses information (giving it back to the source galaxy?) on leaving the field of the source, as in a SCU the transmission is instantaneous, A and B determine together the frequency of the photon to be transmitted –so there’s no information lost. In a SCU the ‘redshift’ (between quotation marks as there is nothing which shifts, no loss of information) is the expression of the fact that what happens at some galaxy matters less as it is more distant, so there’s no loss of information, it just is less accessible to observation.

This isn’t to say that properties and laws vary objectively from place to place, as seen from outside the universe, so to say: being both the effect and cause of its interactions, a particle adjusts its properties, its behavior to the environment it finds itself in so it cannot ‘notice’ any change in laws as it travels. If a SCU cannot have any particular property or be in any particular state as a whole, then this suggests that all possible properties/states are realized somewherewhen to ensure that everything adds to nil, cancels. This in turn may mean that it must be infinite: indeed, why would a universe need to be so large if it would be exactly the same everywhere?

Notes

</references>

Some misconceptions about mass and charge

If the energy of a particle is a quantity equal to its rate of change, and something only can keep changing without becoming infinite if it alternates an increase with a decrease, alternate its sign, then energy is a quantity which is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next. If when we change the energy sign of a particle we change the sign of its electric charge, then the charge sign particles have according to each other refers to their energy sign, so charge is a dynamic quantity, its sign alternating at a frequency equal to the energy of the particle.

This is in contrast to the present, classical belief in physics where, since a particle property is thought to only be the cause of forces, charge is thought of as a static quantity, the charge sign of a particle to be either positive or negative, always –so the electric force between them is either attractive or repulsive, always.

If in this classical picture, we change the sign of the energy of a particle, then all of its properties change their sign –and we turn it into its antiparticle.

Observations indicate that the universe contains much more particles than antiparticles, the so-called baryon asymmetry: as the universe cannot have any particular property as a whole, this must mean that the energy of a particle is a quantity which is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next, that it alternates between a state in which it looks like a particle and a state in which it is an antiparticle: as if nature, in an effort to obey the Nix law, tries to un-create in one phase what it created in the previous one.

However, if all particles alternate their energy sign –at a frequency equal to their energy, then the sign one particle observes the other to have depends on their distance, alternating every time their distance changes with an amount of (2n + 1)/2 times the wavelength they exchange energy in, and with it, thee force between them alternating from attractive to repulsive.

Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) describes particle interactions as proceeding via virtual photons which are thought of as bullet-like particles which, en route from one particle to the other, interact with all kinds of ‘virtual’ particles they encounter on their path, not unlike balls ricocheting between stoppers in a pinball machine, every collision affecting the outcome of the interaction.

J. A. Wheeler:

“Back in 1940 or 1941, Feynman had come up with a new way to look at quantum phenomena that I called ‘sum-over-histories.’ 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 mind-bending idea, to be sure, but it’s just what happens in the quantum world.”

.

In a universe where the speed of light is a velocity, the source of the signal, A (the baseball pitcher) doesn’t know the state or the exact position of B (the batter) will be at the time the photon (ball) will have reached him, nor how a gust of wind will affect its trajectory. QED therefore imagines the pitcher to ‘throw a thousand balls’, the paths of which all affect the velocity, spin and direction of the ball as it reaches the batter, of the path the real photon –or collection of paths all virtual photons?) actually takes. It is unclear why B would want to be informed about the environment the photon(s) traveled through, another problem being that if paths of different lengths take different times, and we must sum over all possible paths, including trips via Sirius etc., then the ball when hit would need a long time to calculate what path to actually take or take into account what each of the thousands of balls has to report about its voyage.

If in a SCU particles express and preserve their properties by exchanging energy, then here all relevant information about all particles within the interaction horizon of both A and B, about their energy, position, motion and spin already is present at A and B even before the photon transmission so here there’s no need for ‘thousand balls’, intermediary virtual photons to gather such info. That is, as in a SCU there’s no sharp distinction between real and virtual (massive) particles, ‘all particles within the interaction horizon of A and B’ includes the particles associated with the fields of A and B, in the environment the virtual photons of the classical picture are supposed to interact with as they travel. As this exchange in a SCU is instantaneous, here particles at all times are informed about their environment in real-time, the information being refreshed in every cycle, communicated in two directions at once, from A to B and from B to A. Though it may be handy to envision the interaction as proceeding via ‘thousand balls’ flying from A to B, in terms of cause and effect, to calculate and sum over the effect of all paths every one of these virtual photons takes, this ‘pin-ball-machine’ version of events is seriously outdated and causes many pseudo-problems.

String theory (ST)

If, as physicists at present assume, the mass of particles is privately owned quantity, only the cause of gravity and gravity is exclusively attractive, then this leads to infinite gravitational forces and interaction energies at infinitesimal distances, to gravitational singularities (also called spacetime singularities).

Though this infinity problem could’ve been revealed to be a pseudo problem and discarded by realizing that, if according to the UP, it takes energy to decrease the indefiniteness in the position of particles, to decrease their distance, their distance cannot become infinitesimal unless their environment provides the necessary (infinite) energy, one has thought it necessary to dream up a theory to explain why, if gravity is exclusively attractive, all massive objects don’t sit on top of each other.

String theory, developed in an effort to try to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity theory and unify gravity with the other forces, was invented to avoid the infinities inherent to point-like interactions: it posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not point-particles –objects which follow worldlines– but 1-dimensional objects which follow worldsheets so interact at surfaces instead of at points, so interaction energies are ‘diluted’ to finite values.

Unfortunately in insisting that particle properties only are the cause of forces so the charge of a particle is either positive or negative, always, the electric force to be is either attractive or repulsive, always, string theory makes it impossible to unify it with gravity or other forces. The theory therefore is part of the problem, making it more insurmountable with every paper devoted to it as it makes the misconceptions it’s based upon more sacrosanct..

If not only mass, but any property ‘is interaction’, then so is the electric charge of particles: if both the mass and charge of particles, the gravitational and electric force between them vary as the inverse square of their distance, and a force, either attractive or repulsive cannot be stronger or weaker that the counter force it evokes so the electric force between two particles cannot exceed their repulsion, powered by their inertia, then shouldn’t the electric force, powered by their charge, be exactly as strong as the force powered by their mass? Indeed, present physics, including ST, contradict Newton’s action = reaction law as it explains events to happen because one force overcomes the other –thereby defining them to be independent from each other, to be un-unifiable:

Frank Wilczek ?”:

”It was clear from the start that essentially new forces rule the nuclear world. The classic forces of pre-nuclear physics are gravity and electromagnetism. But the electric forces acting in nuclei are repulsive: the nuclei have overall positive charge, and like charges repel. Gravitational forces, acting on the tiny amount of mass in any one nucleus, are far too feeble to overcome the electric repulsion.”

”Because both electric and gravitational forces fall off in the same way with distance (namely, as the inverse square), we’ll get the same ratio at any distance. Let’s compare the electric to the gravitational force between a proton and an electron. The electrical force is about 10,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger.”

Well, this contradicts Newton’s action = reaction law which says that any force is always exactly as strong as the counterforce it evokes, without which it cannot be a force. If we can increase their electric attraction only as much as their opposition to it, to a repulsion powered by their inertia, by decreasing their distance, by supplying the necessary energy, then we increase both the mass and charge the electron and proton have according to each other –which is what happens when a cloud of hydrogen gas contracts to a star.

If the energy of particles is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next so its creation doesn’t violate conservation laws, if it is as much the cause as the effect of their interactions and in a SCU mass cannot but keep creating itself, then in this universe the contraction produces the energy needed to contract itself.

So if the mass and charge of particles is both the cause and effect of forces between them, then we might say as well that it is gravity which powers the electric force between particles: so if mass tends to keep increasing, creating itself, then same should hold for charge –in which case it doesn’t make much sense to consider them as different, as independent properties. If what we call charge refers to the energy sign one particle has according to the other, then, like the mass of a particle, its charge, its sign and magnitude, is a relative quantity.

Only when we or nature disturb the equilibrium between particles, by pulling them apart or pushing them closer together do they react as if the force between them is attractive or repulsive, as if the property powering the force is a privately owned quantity, and only then do we observe electromagnetic phenomena. If particles express and preserve each other’s mass by continuously exchanging energy, then by manipulating them we in fact affect the energy of all particles within their IH, so we can as well say that their opposition to intervention, the counterforce is powered by the entire universe, a mechanism which requires the exchange to proceed instantaneously, bridging any spacetime distance in no time at all, which it only is in a SCU where a space distance is a time distance.

Wilczek:

“The gravitational force on a body didn’t have to be proportional to the body’s mass.”

This nicely illustrates the opinion that mass is something mysterious, a quantity which, as it is only the cause of gravity, independent of interactions, could give rise to a gravitational force the strength of which could have every conceivable magnitude. As (only) in a SCU the mass of objects is both the product as the source of gravity, it obviously is proportional to it. Though one might ask, why the gravitational constant G –the proportionality constant relating mass and gravitational force– has the value

G ≅ 6.674 x 10^–8 cm³ g^–1 s^–2

if G has the dimension L³/M . T<sup2</sup> but in a SCU a space distance is a time distance (so L = T) and mass can be expressed as a length (M = L), then, like c and h, G is a dimensionless number –as it should be. In other words, if its value is just the result of an arbitrary choice of units of our forebears, then it makes no sense to wonder about its particular magnitude: we can only wonder about it if we assume that mass causally precedes gravity, in a BBU.

So Wilczek’s or Einstein’s question

“In Einstein’s original 1905 paper, you do not find the equation E = mc². What you find is m = E / c². [..] In fact, the title of that paper is the question: Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content? In other words, can some of a body’s mass arise from the energy of the stuff it contains”?

doesn’t make much sense as to explain mass you need to explain energy, its origin.

Similarly, though we can invent a strong force to counteract the electric repulsion between protons in atomic nuclei, if we believe it to be powered by a new kind of force, associated with new particle species (quarks, gluons), and their properties indeed would be completely different, independent from mass and charge, then we can never unify them. If quark(propertie)s are as much the product as the source of their interactions –including the repulsion between the protons they form which (Newton) always is equal to the (strong) attraction between the quarks within the protons, then we might as well say that the electric force powers the strong force and vice versa.

This of course doesn’t make Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) a superfluous theory: if the properties particles observe each other to have depends on their relative spin, velocity and direction of motion, and they are to distinguish such differences as they affect their own energy in different ways, then we can associate all such distinguishable spin-motion combinations with different properties we can invent fancy names for like ‘flavor’ or ‘color’. If a symmetry operation, a rotation over 90, 180 or 270°, say, changes the color one quark observes the other to have, the sign of the energy or its spin, then such properties must be different manifestations in different directions of a single, ambivalent force –strong gravity, weak gravity being the expression of the tendency of mass in a SCU to keep creating itself. By insisting that particle properties only are the cause of forces so they either are attractive or repulsive, we define forces to be un-unifiable.

Though the force between the quarks of a nucleon can only be as great as the force they feel from the opposite directions, from the environment, from neighboring nucleons, they also can maintain an outwards force by spinning fast about their mass center.. In that case the outwards force, from objects in the environment can be small while the nucleon can conserve its mass –and can appear to act as being only the cause of interactions –discussion to be continued.

The point is that though in the present, reductionist approach of physics, quarks are thought to causally precede protons and neutrons, that QED predicts to an extreme accuracy quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen by treating the proton as an fundamental, i.e., indivisible particle rather than a composite particle, already indicates that we can consider quarks to be both the effect and cause of baryon interactions –in which case quarks might only appear in high-energy collisions and in high-density objects.

This is related to the question whether, if particles evolve to higher energies as they contract, their energy decreases again when the star they are part of explodes ( supernova), or whether they adjust their behavior in such a manner that their rest energy is preserved –a question which will be discussed elsewhere in this text.

If particles, particle properties are cause and effect of forces between them, we may perhaps extend the equivalence principle to say that we can call any force which brings to expression the inertia of an object, “gravity”, no matter how the force is generated, by a magnet, an electric current, by an acceleration or gravitational field. If ‘all mass is interaction’ and all forces contribute to the mass of objects and in a SCU particles do not have a surface which separates their mass, from its effects, its gravitational field, then Einstein’s credo that mass and space define each other still holds:

“It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible. Rather, the gμν-field should be fully determined by matter and not be able to exist without it.”

.

Whereas in this quote matter and spacetime still are thought of as separate, more or less independent quantities, later this evolves into the suspicion that mass itself is a state of spacetime:

“The vision that animated Einstein throughout his later years –a vision I had many an occasion to discuss with him– was a vision of a totally geometric world, a world in which everything was composed ultimately only of spacetime.”

.

However, since physicists cannot let go of causality, they have to assume that a fundamental particle does have a surface separating its properties from their effect –in which case particles, objects, remain guests in spacetime.

Leonard Susskind:

“All physicists take it for granted that elementary particles are not infinitely small points of space. We all expect that electrons, photons and other elementary particles are at least as big as the Planck length, and possibly bigger.”

though elsewhere in the same book he writes that the electron

“has remained a point of space”

As argued, there’s nothing special about the Planck length, so this just doesn’t make sense. A particle only can have a size if it has a surface separating some content (mass, charge) from its effects in the environment –in which case it wouldn’t be a quantum object. If its actual size would be related to the magnitude of its mass or charge, then this would imply that the inside stuff is made up out of sub-particles, whereas if its size would be an independent property, its magnitude should matter, have observable effects. If not, if there is a sphere uniformly filled with some stuff which cannot be split into sub-particles, then all positions inside the sphere would be identical, physically –in which case its diameter cannot be > 0.

Most physicists believe that

“ … there is a single set of simple underlying laws that describe how the universe works, and these laws are uniquely determined. There are no extra parameters that determine the theory; once one gets the right idea about what the laws are, there are no additional numbers that one needs to specify in order to write them down.”

.

Though in CM a particle property is defined to be independent from its behavior, in as in a SCU particles are cause and effect of their interactions, then we cannot distinguish the properties of a particle from its expression, its behavior, so if with physical laws we mean the rules of behavior particles have to obey, and in a SCU we cannot even distinguish between a property and law, then such laws are the product of an evolution –instead of being prescriptions which have been imposed upon the universe at its creation, as they are in a BBU.

If, as argued, the universes of two particles overlap less, we can say that their interactions are weak because of their distance, but also that their properties are more different, qualitatively, as they are farther apart, the laws they obey –so we can avoid violating the Nix law, the universe to have particular properties as a whole. If constants of nature like c, h and G are dimensionless numbers, their largeness or smallness being the result of the arbitrary choice of units of lengths, times and weights of our forebears, then they are not the unique, significant numbers they often are thought to be.

Notes

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 Pratchett

.

Causality and the speed of light

In the continuous revision process to include new ideas as they develop (and discard less useful ideas), I presently am here: what follows needs to be deleted/revised/updated so I’m afraid that some parts repeat topics which already have been discussed. I haven’t deleted it as there still are some ideas worthwhile enough to work out.

Causality requires that we can determine the absolute time sequence of events, which only is possible in a universe created by some outside intervention like a BBU which, living in a time continuum not of its own making, evolves as a whole with respect to something outside of it, its pace measured with an imaginary outside clock showing cosmic time, the time passed since the mythical bang. As we cannot, in practice, look at the universe from without so cannot read this cosmic clock, the concept of cosmic time is deeply flawed: instead of being the sine qua non of science we take it for, causality proves to be an essentially religious concept. In contrast, a SCU has to obey the law which says that what comes out of nothing adds to nothing: as it has no physical reality as a whole but only exists as seen from within, this universe does not live in time but contains and produces all time within. In a SCU all observers, no matter where and when they look, see clocks run slower and show an earlier time as they more distant: since in a SCU no observer is more unique than any other, here it is impossible to determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, and hence what is cause of what.

A BBU evolves as a whole in time so it looks different in different epochs: here the Cosmological Principle only says that the universe should look about the same to all observers, wherever they are, that no point in the universe is more unique than any other. However, if we can only speak about a bang if it doesn’t last forever, if the amount of matter and energy created is finite, if the universe is finite, then this implies it to have a unique (mass) center and finite size, i.e., a border the points of which physically are different from the rest –which, as it contradicts the CP, means that the CP doesn’t even hold in a BBU.

In contrast, in a SCU the mass of particles and the objects they form is as much the product as the source of their interactions: defined as being greater as its position (of its mass center) is less indefinite, as the object is more exactly at rest with respect to the objects it owes its mass to, in a SCU mass is preferably created at rest, automatically leading to an isotropic and homogenous universe. Unlike a BBU, a SCU we doesn’t need any artificial, far-fetched ‘cosmic inflation’ scheme to explain observations, or why the laws of physics are the same everywhere, always. As in a SCU no point in space nor time is more unique than any other, a SCU obeys the Perfect Cosmological Principle, in contrast to a BBU which doesn’t even obey the CP.

Therefore a SCU should look about the same to any observer, from wherever he looks and whenever he looks at it, as long as conditions at the observer –like the strength of the gravitational field he looks from– are comparable and the observers are physically similar. Whereas a BBU is an ordinary, classical object which is the same to all observers, an object the properties of which, but for practical difficulties, can be observed objectively from without, as in a SCU (observing) particles only exist to each other if, as far and as long as they interact, it looks, is different to different particles: the universes of two particles would only completely coincide, be identical if they could be at the same point in space and time. Anyhow, if in a universe obeying the PCP there’s no hierarchy between observations, no point from which the absolute time sequence of events can be established, what precedes what in an absolute sense, then in such universe we ultimately cannot determine what is cause of what, for example, whether the transmission of a photon is caused by the emitting particle or whether it is the absorbing particle which initiates its transmission.

If atom A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission which changes the state of both atoms, then A ‘sees’ B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change at the time it absorbs the photon. That is, unless we believe that B, after absorbing the photon sends back a message to A to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note informing A that it can, as of this moment, start to see B in its new state.

If in a SCU no point in space nor time is more unique than any other so both A and B are equally right about the time of the transmission, if in a SCU it doesn’t even make sense to ask where it is earlier and where it is later in an absolute sense, if the observation of what precedes what depends on the observer, then we cannot but conclude that the transmission in fact must be instantaneous. Indeed, whereas in a BBU it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere so here a photon should move at a finite velocity, in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere. As a SCU contains and produces all time within so clocks are observed to run slower and show an earlier time as they are more distant, here a space distance is a time distance, so here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all. Though one might object that as the photon moves from A to B, it can be ascribed a velocity, the point is that as in a SCU energy is a quantity which is neither positive nor negative or both, as argued, we cannot determine whether a photon goes from A to B or an antiphoton energy from B to A. This of course means that A cannot produce a photon for B to absorb if B refuses to absorb it: that A and B (and their entire environment) together determine whether the photon is transmitted, that the transmission is a simultaneous two-way interaction.

The ‘speed’ of light c, then doesn’t refer to a (finite) velocity but to a property of spacetime, how many meters space distance correspond to one second time distance. It is because it is a property of spacetime that all observers, no matter their own motion measure the same ratio as it has nothing to do whatsoever with the behavior of the observer, never mind that to a moving observer distances contract in his direction of motion and the observed pace of nearing clocks increases as he moves faster. It is the difference in the observed pace of processes at different places inherent to a SCU why a space distance necessarily is a time distance: to ensure that, as seen from within, the universe at all times and from every point looks about the same (as long as the observers are similar and the gravitational field at the observation post are similar), that is, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and to guarantee that as ‘seen’ from without, the grand total of everything inside of it, including spacetime itself, stays nil.

In a BBU it is the same time everywhere so all clocks are observed to run at the same pace everywhere when at rest relative to the observer, so here a space distance is not a time distance: as in a BBU points only are separated in space, not in time, here the speed of light is a velocity, so here we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in the past. Since in CM, in BBC objects only are the cause of interactions, we attribute them an absolute, autonomous existence, an existence which in principle can be observed objectively in real time but for the finiteness of the speed of light. If we were to imagine objects, their particles to have a clock, a clock which started to run at the bang, and in a BBU they all show the exact same cosmic time, then they either are at all times are in instantaneous physical contact to keep their clocks synchronized so distance doesn’t affect this synchronization, or that their behavior at all times, for all of eternity has been pre-calculated, preprogrammed, predetermined, calibrated to the last decimal at the time of the bang. In that case we not only might ask what the point of their creation is, it wouldn’t even make sense to try to understand their behavior it in terms of forces or it would be impossible to understand the why of properties and forces, of physical laws.

In contrast, in a SCU we see a galaxy as it is at present to us, in an early phase of its evolution, even though to a local observer (who physically is similar to us, and looks from similar conditions) his galaxy is in a much later phase. The point is that the distance-redshift acts like a color filter which sifts out the higher exchange frequencies so objects are observed to have a lower energy as they are more distance, a lower energy we can associate with (or define to be) an earlier evolutionary phase, so the galaxy looks, is different to identical observers at different distances. Like the rest frequency of a particle is a superposition of all frequencies it exchange energy at with all particles within its interaction horizon, the state of the galaxy is a superposition of all its interactions over all of spacetime, so is a superposition of evolutionary phases, all of which contribute to the properties a nearby observer observes it to have. Whereas in a BBU the earlier phases have vanished from the state of the galaxy, the earlier phases still visible, affecting events at larger and larger distances without itself being affected by what it wreaks elsewhere, in a SCU no photon can be emitted without the cooperation of the object which is to absorb it, so here the ‘earlier’ phases still are part of the galaxy in all later phases. So whereas in a BBU the galaxy is an absolute kind of object, something which, but for practical difficulties, can be observed objectively even from without the universe so here we can speak about the galaxy and the past of that galaxy, as an object which is the exact same thing to all observers, in a SCU there is no such thing. In a SCU it is not the same time everywhere: as here objects have different spacetime coordinates and a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, we don’t see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in the past, but as it is at present to us.

The concept of time and the interpretation of the speed of light in a SCU is fundamentally different from that in a BBU: as the difference also is very subtle, it may be hard if not impossible to experimentally prove whether the speed of light refers to a velocity (CM, BBU) or a property of spacetime (SCU).

A SCU doesn’t need an artificial, far-fetched scheme like cosmic inflation nor any mysterious dark energy to explain observations, nor are the EPR paradox and double-slit experiment enigmatic since here the speed of light doesn’t refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, so if Occam’s razor would be a criterion for the validity of theories, then a SCU has much better papers than a BBU.

So whereas in the classical picture A and B exist independent from each other so what happens at A must be communicated, physically travel from A to B, this necessarily takes time, so in a BBU A and B see each other as they were some time in the past. In contrast, as particles in a SCU keep each other informed about their state by continuously exchanging energy, updating each other at the frequency they exchange energy at so any change of this frequency contains all relevant information, all info about the state of A and B and their entire environment already is present at both A and B even before any transmission. Since all particles within the interaction horizon of A and B participate in the photon transmission as it affects their own energy, we cannot ask what particle caused the transmission, so if we cannot, even in principle, identify its cause, then we cannot determine what precedes what.

This of course doesn’t mean that two observers communicating with light signals can do so without time delay: though the transmission of light is instantaneous, as in a SCU the observers are separated in space, they are separated in time, so their clocks don’t show the same time as they emit/absorb the photon: that we measure the time distance between A and B as a duration doesn’t mean that the transmission takes time. In a BBU we can, in our imagination, follow the photon cruising from A to B from an observation post outside the universe –like we can follow a plane flying from Tokyo to Texas from outer space, from the Skylab, in a SCU it is scientifically illegitimate to imagine what happens inside the universe from without. Since a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole, as A and B only have reality to the (inside) particles they interact with, we can only observe events from within, so as a space distance is a time distance and the observed pace of clocks depends on the distance they are observed from, the observed time and sequence of events depends on the observer as is the exact nature of what is observed to happen: the farther away something happens, the more redshifted or the less definite the information is the observer receives, the less it affects the observer.

In a CM the existence of particles is a given: since they only are the cause of fields and forces, there’s no need for a continuous exchange of energy, of information between particles, between the atoms they form, so as A and B aren’t informed about each other’s state, here B cannot incite A to produce a photon. Because A and B are assumed to have an autonomous existence, independent from each other we assume that we can divide the transmission into three independent events, the spontaneous emission of the photon by A, the voyage of the photon and its random, accidental absorption by B.

No wonder that Gerard ‘t Hooft wondered how, if

“ … space and time only exist as a separate set of points … we then [can] explain how these points are related to form the known space and time?”

Indeed, as long as we take the existence of particles for granted, assume that ‘to be’ is a static state, their properties acquired at the mythical bang to stay unchanged forever after, a noun rather than a verb, it is hard to see how different points can knit together a physical spacetime continuum rather than a mathematical spacetime, a collection of identical points, how physical laws can be valid everywhere, how they can be communicated, imposed over all of spacetime, how the universe can look about the same everywhere if what happens at A doesn’t depend in any way on what happens elsewhere. Remarkably, the spontaneity, the randomness, the causelessness which allegedly ‘governs’ such emission and processes is a characteristic feature of CM, of BBC –which is at odds with its pretention to give a rational, a causal and consistent explanation of the universe.

If in a SCU we cannot distinguish the transmission of a photon from A to B from that of an antiphoton from B to A, a wave crest moving from A to B from that of a wave through from B to A, if we cannot distinguish cause from effect, then the speed of light c must be a property of spacetime rather than a velocity, so the photon is not the classical, bullet-like object traveling through spacetime it at present is thought to be. Though most theorists adhere to the classical view in which photons are thought of as bullets moving at a finite, constant velocity through spacetime, this is a classical, causal view, an outdated, untenable view on what actually is a non-causal phenomenon.

Though c certainly is a speed limit for massive objects since you obviously cannot cross a space distance in a shorter time than the time distance it corresponds to, terms like ‘velocity’ and ‘causality’ only apply to objects and influences moving at velocities < c. It is because the ‘speed’ of light doesn’t refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, that all observers, no matter their own motion measure the same ‘speed’ of light, even though the observed pace of clocks and length of paths do depend on their velocity.

However, even in the macroscopic, classical world the usefulness of causality is limited. Though chaos theory often is thought to say that the antics of a moth at one place can cause a hurricane elsewhere, if an intermediary, later event can cancel the party, then the moth’s antics only can be a cause in retrospect, if the hurricane actually happens, so cannot be its cause at all. Though at velocities < c, a bullet fired by A may miss target B since B might move in the time the bullet needs to reach B, as according to a bullet at the ‘speed’ of light, there is no space nor time distance between A and B, that is between the emission and absorption, between cause and effect, A can only shoot a photon towards B if and when B cooperates, agrees to absorb it. As at velocities < c, the probability of a hit decreases with the distance between A and B, the probability of an event at A to cause an event at B decreases as they are farther apart: the greater their distance, the less events in A’s universe are related to events in B’s universe and vice versa, agreeing with the PCP which forbids any hierarchy between particles, between points in space and time. The greater their distance, the less compulsory, the less ‘causally’ an event at A is related to what happens at B, the greater the uncertainty whether it affects A or the less definite that effect is, the less it physically matters to B what happens at A.

This of course is not to say that if we switch on a lamp, we cannot cause its photons to be absorbed elsewhere: however, if in a SCU, if in quantum mechanics, a certain photon only can be emitted if and when the observing particle agrees to absorb it and the transmission is instantaneous, then we cannot say with a 100% certainty that B will absorb A’s photon, that is, say that by switching on the light, we cause B to absorb the photon.

If when we push the heck of a door, and we call the fact that it opens as we do the effect of a cause, of our pushing the heck, which happens with a 100% certainty, then this is a causal event –in which case the term ‘causal’ is meaningless. If , on the other hand, the certainty that event B follows event A is less than 100%, then we cannot say that A causes B however much it increases the chance of B to happen: if B not necessarily follows A, then that means that if B happens, it may not be A which ‘caused’ B to happen. In other words, causality is an overrated concept even in classical, ‘causal’ mechanics.

So what in CM, in a BBU appear to be three separate, independent events, the emission of the photon, its journey and its absorption in a SCU is a single event, so here A cannot emit a photon without the cooperation of the atom which is to absorb it. It is because there usually are enough particles willing to absorb photons why a light source seems to be the autonomous cause of the emission, as if processes at the source are completely independent from what happens elsewhere, why we assume that their emission precedes, in an absolute sense, their absorption. However, if we could put the source inside a sphere which would reflect radiation of all wavelengths, without absorbing any of it, then it wouldn’t be able to emit a single photon.

Photon transmissions between particles are not unlike financial transactions on the stock market where a deal is done only if both buyer and seller agree on the price of the shares, their number and the time of the transaction. If one buyer (seller) refuses to buy (sell), there usually are plenty other buyers (sellers) willing to do the deal, so the fact that deals keep being made doesn’t mean that the seller or buyer can force the other to deal, that A can force B to absorb the photon or B can force A to emit it. As it doesn’t make sense to ask what precedes what, the buying or the selling, we cannot say which of them causes the transaction, so their deal is, in fact, finalized instantaneously. Though their communication about the deal, all relevant information about the state of affairs of the other (‘Does the other know something about the market which makes him want to get rid of (buy) the shares?) is not instantaneous, the point is that in energy transactions we cannot really say what precedes what, supply or demand. Though an event near A (B) may trigger the photon emission at A (its absorption at B), as A and B are in instantaneous contact, if A and B owe their energy to all particles within their interaction horizon, all of which have a voice in the ‘decision’ whether to deal or not, then we cannot say which of them causes the transmission. Anyhow, if in a SCU there can be no universal clock to determine what precedes what in an absolute sense, then we cannot distinguish a photon moving from A → B which increases B’s energy from a photon moving from B rarr; A decreasing A’s energy. Like a financial transaction doesn’t consist of three independent events, the selling, the buying and the transport of shares and money (though the processing and administration of the deal does take time), a photon transmission doesn’t consist of three separate, independent events.

To be or not to be (seen)

It obviously takes a voyager less time to travel from A to B as he moves faster: however, if according to relativity theory his voyage takes no time at all if he could move at the speed of light, then to such voyager there would be no distance at al between A and B, so his voyage would be instantaneous to him. This is only possible if he doesn’t interact with the (objects in the) environment he travels through, if the voyager and the environment don’t exist to each other –in which case we cannot say that he has a velocity since this requires something with respect to which he moves, something he continuously interacts with as he travels.

A particle can ‘move’ at the speed of light either if it has no property by means of which it can be engaged in interaction with the objects with respect to which it moves, or, what’s the same, if it can keep its position, the position to act from and be acted upon, perfectly indefinite (agreeing with the mass definition here proposed), that is, if it ‘moves’ at the ‘speed’ of light. So the trick for a particle to move at the ‘speed’ of light consists either of cutting off its energy exchange with the environment it in a SCU owes its properties to, so if it has to stop expressing its existence and nevertheless is to obey conservation laws anytime, then this means that its energy is transported instantaneous. This is in contrast to CM where the voyage of a photon, moving at a finite speed, violates conservation laws since its energy isn’t expressed, i.e., is absent from the universe for the duration of its voyage.

If empty spacetime is a diluted form of mass, if mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, but to a particle without mass or ‘moving ‘at the ‘speed’ of light, mass has no physical reality, then to such particle there exists no distance in space nor time.

According to the mass definition here proposed, the mass of a particle is greater as its position is less indefinite, as it remains longer within a smaller area. The smaller its mass is, the weaker its interactions are, the less energy is involved in a displacement, the less definite its position is and vice versa. To a moving particle all points of its path therefore are more equal physically as its mass is smaller and/or it moves faster: the smaller its mass is and/or the faster it moves, the more all positions are equal to the particle, the less definite its position is, the shorter its path is in space and time, a distance which becomes infinitesimal at an infinite velocity. It is the instantaneousness of the energy exchange between fermions which knits all spacetime points together, by means of which physical laws are imposed everywhere.

If the position of a particle cannot be perfectly indefinite at a finite velocity, however high, then the speed of light is not a velocity: if the transmission of a photon is instantaneous, then the speed of light c is a property of spacetime, a number which says how many meters space distance correspond to one second time distance. It is because the transmission is instantaneous why all observers, no matter their motion, always find the same value for c since their behavior cannot in any way change the properties of spacetime they (are supposed) to move in. Indeed, if fermions must exchange energy to keep existing to each other, then we cannot have that energy interfered with as it is en route so its transmission must be instantaneous: what’s more, for a photon to interact with the objects along its path would require the existence of intermediary particles moving even faster than the speed of light.

A photon which is transmitted between two particles is supposed to follow all possible paths it might take between them. To find the probability for a photon to go from one place to the next, all possible interactions of the photon with the virtual particles it may encounter on all possible paths must be calculated, see Feynman path integral. The effects of all these interactions on all these paths affect the result of fermion-fermion interactions –in baseball-speak, every one of the “thousand balls that travel a thousand different paths through space and time on their way to the batter” affect the actual outcome of the interaction. So in this classical interpretation (classical as in this view the speed of light is thought to refer to the velocity of light instead of being the property of spacetime it is in a SCU), the photon, by following all possible paths, seems to ‘sniff out’ the entire environment, gathering information which affects the outcome of the fermion interaction. The problem of this is that if the photon takes many paths of different lengths, which to follow takes different times, it is hard to see how all results of its interactions on all paths can be summed and processed into the outcome of the fermion interaction within a finite time, the time it takes the photon to follow the shortest path. As in this, classical interpretation of a quantum mechanical event, the fermions are thought supposed to be only the cause, the source of forces and fields, the bearers of information, this info must be communicated, that is, a process which takes time. In other words, this representation implicitly assumes the existence of an objectively observable reality (objectively measurable fields, particle positions and motions), of information which takes time to scout due to a finite light speed. In contrast, in a SCU the particles are in instantaneous contact: as the frequency particles exchange energy at is affected by their state, distance and motion, they at all times are informed about each other so here we need no photon sniffing out all possible paths to gather such information: here all info is present and processed in real-time into their behavior, affecting the outcome of the interaction.

In other words, when in a SCU a photon is transmitted between two particles, all relevant information about their entire environment already is present at both the emitting and absorbing particle.

The fact that QED can calculate, predict to an extreme accuracy the outcome (that is, calculate the probability of all possible interaction results) of such interactions by breaking it up into separate, independent events involving virtual photons moving at a finite velocity and particles of all possible energies does not mean that it actually happens that way. The fact that QED only works when renormalized, corrected for the infinities which arise from the assumption that if particles only are the source of forces, already indicates that there’s something wrong with the present interpretation of quantum phenomena. Whereas in CM photons are thought of as autonomous, classical, bullet-like objects moving at a finite velocity so exist separately, independent from massive particles, in a SCU we cannot really consider mass and energy as separate, independent quantities.

As particles in a BBU at the bang were provided with all their properties, here they only are the source, the cause of interactions, the source of information: since this info is a privately owned property so doesn’t depend on anything, it has to be communicated, so takes time. As in a BBU their energy is a privately owned property, they don’t need to exchange energy to keep existing, so here gravity is supposed to be the only significant force between galaxies, usually too weak for events in one galaxy to significantly affect events in the other. In this view the contraction of particles to stars and galaxies is thought to be more or less preordained at the bang, largely independent from what happens elsewhere: since a star is the autonomous source, the cause of the light it produces, here we have a finite light speed. Because in a BBU it is the same (cosmic) time everywhere, because of the presumed autonomy of its particles, here light must move at a finite velocity, so here we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in the past as it took its light so much time to reach us.

In contrast, in a SCU a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all so here we don’t see distant galaxies as they were in the past, but as they are at present, to us, so the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) of 2.7 º K we detect wasn’t emitted in the past, but is produced as we speak and is associated with self-creation processes.

So whereas a BBU is thought of as an object which has an absolute, ‘Über-Universal’ reality, an object which but for practical difficulties can be observed from without, something which has a beginning and evolves as a whole in time, violating conservation laws, a SCU only exists as seen from within, so here what is observed also depends on the observer. Unlike a BBU which is supposed to look the same to every observer, in a SCU the particles of the body of the of the observer are part of the sum which is to stay nil: being as much the product as the source of their interaction, here there is no absolute, objectively observable reality at the origin of his observations. If we were to enlarge the atoms of our body to the size of a pinhead, then we'd be about 1.5 times as tall as the diameter of the Earth. From the point of view of fundamental particles of these atoms, we are gigantic bio-machines which obey classical mechanics. These huge machines may very well follow a different logic than the particles they consist of: just like the construction of a piano, the mechanics, physics of the atoms of the wood, strings, hammers etcetera has scarcely anything to do with the melodies played on it, so the non-causality of events at quantum level do not exclude causality at macroscopic level. Reversely, the fact that in our macroscopic world events to some extent seem to follow causality does not mean that events at quantum level also must follow causality.

It is because first religion and subsequently the big bang tale assured us that particles passively have been created why we regard them as autonomous objects, only being the cause of their interactions, of fields and forces. As a result we regard stars and galaxies similarly as absolute autonomous objects the properties of which don’t depend on their environment: since in this view they only are the source of information, here we need a finite light velocity so that information about their mass and position can be communicated, so they can interact. Because of this assumed autonomy, because we regard them as objects we can, but for practical difficulties, observe even from without the universe, we believe that can speak about the galaxy and the past of that galaxy.

Since in a SCU particles only exist to each other if, as far and as long as they exchange energy so they in a very fundamental sense they are made out of each other, expressing and preserving each other’s properties, here a star or galaxy isn’t the autonomous light source it is in a BBU. As the contribution of an observing particle to the properties or state of an observed object depends on its own mass, distance and motion, different observers see a different object or more or less the same object in a different state or evolutionary phase. In a SCU there’s no objectively observable, i.e., interaction-independent reality at the origin of our observations, so there is no such thing as the galaxy and the past of that galaxy. So whereas a bigbang cosmologist imagines to look from outside the universe in and thinks to see all stars and galaxies objectively, as they are, such imaginary observer outside a SCU would see nothing so here a concept like ‘the galaxy’ or ‘the past of the galaxy’ has no meaning whatsoever. In a SCU an (inside) observer therefore doesn’t see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in the past: in a SCU he sees it as it is at present, to him.

Whereas a galaxy in a BBU is an object which, as its light propagates, in due course can be observed everywhere as the exact same object, in a SCU a galaxy is the result, the superposition of all interactions all its particles are involved in with all objects within its entire Interaction Horizon (IH). If the energy of a particle is a superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with everything within its IH, and we associate lower frequencies with earlier evolutionary phases, then the particle (or galaxy) is a superposition of all these different phases, every one of which still is active, still contributing to its present state since here the ‘speed’ of light doesn’t refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime.

As a SCU has no reality as a whole, we cannot ask what in an absolute sense (as ‘seen’ from without) precedes what, what is cause of what: as it cannot, as a whole, follow one time direction rather than the other, we must define what we mean with ‘earlier’ and ‘later’. If a SCU cannot have any particular property, be in any particular state as a whole, if objects only can evolve with respect to each other, then it must at all times contain objects in all possible evolutionary phases, the observed phase depending on the observer. If to an observing particle the energy of an observed object is smaller as its own (rest) energy is smaller, then it ‘sees’ the observed object in what to that particle is an evolutionary earlier phase, so in a SCU it depends on its own energy in what phase the observed objects is in.

As the lowest frequency contributions to the energy of the observing particle come from the most remote and/or least massive objects within its IH, distance acts like a color filter which lets pass lower, ‘earlier’ exchange frequencies as the observed object is more distant, as something which slows down the pace of clocks, stretching exchange wavelengths. The greater their distance, the less their universes overlap, the less processes in one universe are related, coupled to processes in the other, the weaker their interactions are, as if their properties or the local laws of physics diverge, are more different qualitatively as they are farther apart The farther apart, the less definite the information they can exchange, the lower its info content, that is, the lower the frequency they exchange energy at, so they see the clock of the other run slower as they are farther apart. The farther apart, the less events at one place affect what happens at the other, the slower the pace at which events are observed to proceed, things to change. So in a SCU the observer doesn’t see the observed object as it was in the past, but only in an earlier evolutionary phase –if we define the phase an object is observed to be in as earlier as its energy is observed to be smaller.

As in a BBU it is the same time (cosmic) everywhere, here a space distance is not a time distance, so all clocks should run at the same pace when at rest with respect to the observer. The observation that galaxies are shifted farther to red as they are more distant, in a BBU therefore is explained as the result of a receding motion, hence the assumption that the universe expands. Following this expansion backwards in time, all matter and energy would appear to converge in a single point, which was the reason for the big bang hypothesis, a hypothesis which only makes sense if the quantity matter and energy created at the bang is finite and constant forever after, a scenario which violates the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing should add to noting. However, since the mechanics of the bang wouldn’t lead to the observed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, one had to invent a cosmic inflation to correct for this. Similarly, though gravity between galaxies was expected to slow down the expansion, this was not observed so to keep the big bang hypothesis alive, one invented a so-called dark energy to explain why the expansion doesn’t slow down, an energy which keeps being created, keeps violating conservation laws. In contrast, a SCU automatically produces a uniform mass distribution, the observed linearity of the distance-redshift obvious.

To summarize:

• In Newton’s time the universe was believed to be created by God so here it is the same time everywhere. Newton thought the gravity to be transmitted instantaneously, but assumed light to take time to travel. Created by god, all objects obviously have an absolute, autonomous existence so they are, in principle though not in practice observable even from without the universe.

• In a BBU it also is the same (cosmic) time everywhere: as light moves at a constant and finite velocity, here we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in the past.

As a BBU similarly is caused, created by some unspecified outside intervention, here objects have an absolute, autonomous, ‘Über-Universal’ kind of reality so only are the cause of interactions, of events.

• In a SCU it is not the same time everywhere: as clocks are observed to run slower as they are more distant, we see a galaxy in an earlier phase of its evolution as it is more distant.

Because light is transmitted instantaneously, we don’t see the galaxy as it was in the past, but as it is at present to us. Here (the particles of) objects only exist to each other if and as far as they interact, are as much the effect as the cause of their interactions.

Notes

The color of light

Let’s consider a collection of identical particles at rest:

Q..............A............B..............P

The energy exchange between P and A, and Q and A and between P, Q and B contributes to the force between A and B and vice versa, and adds frequencies to the superposition of frequencies A and B exchange energy at, to the energy they have according to each other, to the energy they have according to an observer.

The greater the distance between the particles and/or the smaller their mass, the less definite their distance is, the less definite, the lower the frequency they exchange energy at. As a greater distance is a less definite distance, the position of A is less definite according to P than it is to B, so B locates A within a smaller area than P does. A and P therefore exchange energy in a longer, less definite wavelength than do A and B, so according to P the rest energy of A –their exchange frequency– is smaller than it is according to B –agreeing with a SCU where clocks are observed to run slower, particles to oscillate at a lower frequency as they are more distant.

The rest energy we measure A to have then is a superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with every particle within its interaction horizon, every one of which contributes to the force at which it is anchored to some equilibrium position. If we displace it, we affect all these exchange frequencies, the energy of all particles it exchanges energy with, owes its mass to, so to preserve their own energy, they’ll oppose its acceleration: as the exchange powers both its mass and the inertia, the mass of a particle obviously equals its inertia. Since mass to date only has been ‘defined’ in a measurement protocol which disregards its origin, based on the idea that mass only is the cause of forces, as if it is a privately owned, interaction-independent property, we have come to believe that what we measure is an absolute, objectively measurable quantity, is something which can be examined even from without the universe. Because of this, physicists have for a long time been asking themselves why the inertial mass of objects has been observed to equal its gravitational mass.

If the energy of a particle is a superposition of exchange frequencies, depending on the mass, motion and distance of the observing particle, then the definiteness in its position similarly is a superposition of definitenesses. What’s more, if the energy of a particle, its rate of change varies within every cycle, then the definiteness in its position also varies periodically, within every cycle. Saying that A and P exchange energy at a lower frequency than A and B is equivalent to saying that A’s clock runs slower according to P than it does according to B, so we might say that particles see each other in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase as they are farther apart, that is, if we define an ‘earlier’ phase as a state of lower energy.

If the definiteness in the distance between a light source or particle and an observing particle depends on their mass, on the gravitational field they sit in, on their distance and motion, then a change in any of these factors should affect the color of the observed light or the frequency the particles exchange energy at in agreement with relativity theory. In other words, using a mass definition based on the uncertainty principle, it should be possible, in principle, to derive the equations of relativity theory from the UP.

Distance and color

As gravity between particles varies as the inverse square of their distance, its magnitude changes less per unit length as they are farther apart, so a displacement takes more energy at shorter distances than the same displacement when far apart. So if we were to construct a ruler in such a manner that the energy it takes to change the distance between a unit mass and the source of a gravitational field is equal between any two subsequent graduation marks, then such a ruler would –compared with a measurer which is not affected by the field– shrink nearer the source and expand in the opposite direction, away from the source. The position of the graduation marks also would be less indefinite, the marks sharper, more distinct nearer the source, where the field is stronger, to become less definite, their position become vaguer where the field is weaker, where positions to an observing particle become more equal physically, where spacetime is less defined, where it is emptier. If as seen from outside of it, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then the physical distance of the observer to the source of the field, that is, as measured within the field, is greater than their ‘mathematical’ distance, their distance as calculated from their positions with respect to the stars.

If as seen from outside of it, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, of distance, and a larger distance is a less definite distance, then a light source within the field looks shifted farther to red as the field is stronger at the source and weaker at the observer. Equivalently, as in a SCU clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant then as seen from without the field, a clock inside of it should be observed to run slower, a light source look shifted farther to red as the field at the source is stronger compared with that at the observer, which is observed indeed and known as gravitational redshift. In extremis, our ruler would shrink to zero length at the event horizon of a black hole, so clocks would be observed to be completely frozen in time at that horizon, a light source to be infinitely redshifted as seen from outside the hole’s field.

However, if the field at the observer is stronger than it is at the light source, then he sees its light blueshifted as a clock inside the field runs slower compared to a clock outside of it. Whereas looking from the outside the field in, we see its source as if looking at it through the wrong end of a telescope, looking from inside the field out, from near the event horizon of a black hole to a star in the sky, its field in some respects acts like a magnifying glass in speeding up the observed light- or exchange frequency, as if on nearing the event horizon of the hole, we near the engine-room powering the mass of the star –to which the hole, exchanging energy with the star, contributes indeed.

Motion and color

In this text, the position of a particle was (quite sloppily) defined to be less indefinite as it remains longer within a smaller area, as the forces anchoring it to its position are stronger, i.e., more exactly equal from all directions, as it finds itself more exactly at the mass center of the objects it owes its mass to, relative to which it is at rest. A higher velocity of a particle then can be interpreted to mean that all positions of its path are more equal energetically to the particle as it moves faster: the faster it moves, the less definite its position is with respect to the objects it moves (or, according to the particle, the less definite their position is), exchanges energy with.

The faster it moves, the more equal all points of its path are to the particle or the more all positions somewhere are equal energetically to the particle, the faster it must move. It would move at the speed of light if we could envelop its path in a tube which would perfectly isolate it from interacting in transverse directions. In that case all positions on the central axis of the tube would be identical to the particle so its length would be zero according to the particle. Though in equilibrium, at rest, the particle exchanges energy at the same (superposition-) frequency in all directions, this will change when it is accelerated since a distance increase tends to shift its exchange frequency to lower, less definite frequencies and a distance decrease has an opposite effect, leading to a blueshift in its direction of motion. If a higher velocity, a less definite position equals weaker interactions with objects in the environment it travels through (depending in its direction of motion), then the frequency the particle exchanges energy at with the objects in the environment it travels through should decrease, shift to red, so the particle’s clock should run slower, a light source look shifted farther to red as it passes the observer at a higher velocity. According to Special Relativity, the time dilation resulting from the motion of the light source –a clock is observed to run slower as it moves faster with respect to the observer– the light source should look equally redshifted in all directions, if not for an additional and even larger effect. Though a higher velocity of the particle is a less definite distance to objects at both ends of its path, if as soon as we accelerate it, we change its exchange frequency, decrease it in backward directions and increase it in forward directions, then a moving light source looks blueshifted as it nears and redshifted as it recedes from the observer, which indeed is observed and, together with the effect of the time dilation, is known as the relativistic Doppler effect.

According to SR, the energy or mass of a particle would become infinite at the ‘speed’ of light. The question is whether, as seen from the particle’s mass center, its energy is conserved as it is accelerated, or if it is increased by the acceleration it was subjected to. If a particle always acts in such a manner that its energy is conserved, then it can preserve its energy by contracting and deforming its gravitational field in such manner that its exchange frequency as seen from its mass center stays the same in all directions. If we imagine the equipotential surfaces of a particle, surfaces where the gravitational field has the same strength so are spherical as long as it is at rest, and we start to accelerate it, then the outer spheres are affected first as it is accelerated, its mass center lagging behind, with the result that the field contracts in a direction opposite to its motion, and expands in forwards direction, so the field gradient in backwards direction increases to decrease in forward direction. As a result, as seen from the particle’s mass center, what should look blueshifted (in forward direction) and redshifted (backward direction) is compensated by the deformation of its field as it is accelerated, as if as seen from its center, a particle moving at a constant velocity is still in equilibrium with its environment. The question then is whether, according to an observer at rest, as it moves faster, its energy exchange becomes more asymmetric: whether at higher velocities its exchange frequency increases in forward direction at the cost of that in other directions. In that case the energy needed to accelerate it would be absorbed in weakening its ties with objects it recedes from, to compensate them for their energy loss which would occur as it recedes, and in the increase of its exchange frequency with objects in forward directions. In other words, a greater (smaller) distance between objects, by affecting its exchange frequency should have an effect comparable to a higher receding (nearing) velocity.

If the frequency particles exchange energy at decreases, is less definite as their distance is less definite, as they are farther apart, then distance acts like a filter which lets pass lower frequencies as the exchange proceeds over a larger distance, or, equivalently, as a machine which slows down such frequencies, the pace of observed events as they occur farther away. If we define the information content of a photon as greater as its frequency is less indefinite, as it is higher, and a photon shifts to red as it leaves the gravitational field of the (galaxy of the) light source, then it loses information on leaving the galaxy. If when the photon shifts to blue again as enters the field of the observer’s galaxy or planet, then this increased information is added by the receiving galaxy and its environment.

If in a SCU a particle owes its properties to its energy exchange with everything within its IH then two particles would become identical if their environment would be identical, if they could be at the exact same point in space and time. Reversely, the farther apart they are, the less their universes overlap, the more their properties diverge, and the same holds for galaxies, then we might say that violins in both galaxies are tuned more differently, more out of sync, so to say, as they are farther apart, as their universes overlap less: the farther apart, the less definite, the less compulsive the information they exchange, the less related events in one galaxy are to events in the other, the slower they ‘see’ each other evolve. So instead of saying that what happens in one galaxy less affects what happens in the other because forces between them decrease as they are farther apart, we might as well say that their properties diverge more, the kind of stuff they are made out of, satisfying the requirement that a SCU cannot have any particular property as a whole. This is not to say that they are objectively more different, in an absolute sense, but only as seen from within: as argued above, a voyager traveling from a galaxy called ‘France’ to galaxy called ‘China’, on arrival finds the same laws to hold and the same kind of properties and constants of nature. However this may be, though the subsequent red- and blueshift in the energy exchange and transmission between (the particles of) different galaxies may serve to hide such differences, in allowing things to be different, locally, it effectively prevents the universe to have any particular property as a whole.

It only would be the exact same everywhere if it would have a beginning and have particular properties as a whole: if it would be the object Big Bang Cosmology claims it is. The farther apart two galaxies are, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens at one galaxy is physically related to what happens in the other, the less an event at one galaxy affects what happens at the other, the less compulsory the information is they exchange, the less definite it is, i.e., the smaller its information content. So instead of saying that exchange wavelengths stretch, shift farther to red as their distance is greater, we might as well say that distance acts like a sieve sifting out the higher exchange frequencies as they are farther apart, so observers see each other’s galaxy as if they are in an earlier evolutionary phase. In a BBU we can speak about the galaxy and the past of the galaxy, as if it is an absolute kind of object which, but for practical difficulties, can be observed even from without the universe, so here the galaxy is supposed to be the exact same thing to all observers.

In contrast, as in a SCU the properties of particles and the objects they form express and preserve their properties by exchange energy, here the observed galaxy is a more or less different object to different observers: if its energy is the superposition of all exchange frequencies of all its particles over all of space and hence time, then the observed state of a galaxy is a superposition of states, of evolutionary phases all of which contribute to the properties it has according to the observer, so is a different object to different observers. So whereas in a BBU events in the galaxy eventually will become observable everywhere since what happens at the galaxy doesn’t much depend on what happens elsewhere since here the properties of objects are thought to be interaction-independent, to be only the cause of interactions, in a SCU the information about inside events becomes less definite as observed from larger distances In other words, whereas in a BBU we see events proceed at a slower pace as they occur farther away (due to the expansion of the universe) so all information can be recovered by playing a film recording of a distant galaxy at a faster pace, this is impossible in a SCU. Whereas the galaxy in a BBU is an absolute kind of object, the same thing to all observers, as if but for practical difficulties, it would be observable even from without the universe, the fact that in a SCU we see a distant galaxy redshifted, as if it is in an early evolutionary phase doesn’t mean that we see it as it was in a distant past. In a SCU there’s no such thing as the galaxy and the past of that galaxy, no unique object all observers can agree on, so here an observer sees the galaxy as it is at present, to him.

Identity and color

If any two particles exchange energy at a single frequency, a frequency which may be different to both particles as it depends on things like their own mass, their distance and motion, then the question is whether the identity one particle has according to the other also depends on these variables. That is, assuming that the charge sign of particles refers to the sign of their energy, to the phase they are in with respect to each other so we can ignore their charge, and it only is the exchange frequency which determines the observed identity and ignoring things like spin.

If their exchange frequency shifts to blue (red) as they near (recede from) each other at a relativistic velocity, then to an observing particle, an electron approaching at sufficiently high velocity would look like a much heavier particle, like a muon, or even like a baryon if we may indeed ignore their charge sign, and, except at very high energies, may consider baryons as fundamental rather than composite particles. Conversely, a baryon or muon receding at such velocities then might look like an electron to the observing particle –in which case the observed identity of a particle would be a relative quantity, depending on the observing particle, their distance and motion, a mechanism which might help to understand why, how in high-energy collisions between such and such kinds of particles, other particle species are produced. A related question is whether, if two particles exchange energy at a single frequency, that means that they observe each other as being identical even though they may look different to another particle?

These questions arise out of the suspicion that all conserved properties and associated laws must be related to the different ways particles can behave relative to one another. If a particle is to distinguish between different spins, velocities and directions of motion of other particles, then these different kinds of behavior with respect to one another should affect their exchange frequency differently, differences which can be associated with different quantum numbers. Indeed, if particle properties are to be as much the effect as the cause of their behavior, then their observed identity of a particle must be a relative quantity, never mind that we always measure an electron, for example, to have the same properties. If the effect of things like their distance, velocity spin etc. on the frequencies the different particles exchange energy at within an atom is much larger, subject to changes than their exchange with the environment at large, and if the same particle exchanges energy at different frequencies with other particles in the atom, and only certain combinations of frequencies enable their energy to be preserved, then this may explain the discreteness of the relative distances, orbit radii, spins and velocities they assume in atoms.

CM assumes the existence of different particle species, particles which have different properties and hence behave in different ways in the same conditions, their properties only being the cause of interactions, fields and forces. The question then is whether we can, from first principles, from all different ways ‘identical’ particles can spin and move relative to one another, derive, predict what kinds of conserved properties, quantum numbers we may expect in a SCU, what mass ratios and what kinds of objects the particles may form, keeping in mind that the universe cannot have any particular properties nor be in a particular state as a whole.

Notes

Exploding things, such as dynamite or the big bang are unstable. Theories of explosions, including the first picoseconds of the big bang, thus cross Barriers of Relevance and are inherently unfalsifiable, notwithstanding widely cited supporting “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.

Evolution

In BBC all elementary particles have been created at once, their properties ‘switched on’ at the exact right values, all laws of physics operational and all constants of nature in place from one moment to the next: as if there has been a prior calculation to get all values right. In this picture particles causally precede the stars and galaxies they eventually form, as if their future activities have been pre-programmed at their creation, in the design of their properties, carved into their DNA, so to say. However, if nature before it exists cannot calculate anything, then you’d say that particles, properties and physical laws must evolve in some trial-and-error process. Indeed, in a SCU the actual evolution of particles and galaxies is the execution and result of such calculation: if particles and particle properties (and associated laws of physics) are both the product and source of their interactions, then processes in galaxies are part of the design, the creation process of their particles, so here particles don’t causally precede galaxies nor the other way around. This of course only is possible in a universe where the energy exchange by means of which particles preserve and express each other’s mass is instantaneous, that is, in a SCU where a space distance is a time distance –unlike a BBU where we can (delude ourselves that we can) determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, where, as it is the same cosmic time everywhere, the speed of light does refer to a (finite) velocity. In a SCU, which to satisfy conservation laws, cannot have particular properties or be in a particular state as a whole, observers always see objects in all possible phases of their evolution, the more distant, the earlier the phase they are observed to be in, and not because it takes the light of distant galaxies so long to reach us as it would be the case in a BBU.

One of the many problems of BBC is that if going back in time all matter and energy were concentrated at one point and both are sources of gravity, then gravity would be infinitely strong so would effectively prevent any expansion, the bang itself, that is, if at that time all matter and energy can be said to exist within an infinitesimal volume just before the bang and it starts to spread, expand. Because of this the laws of physics are assumed to be invalid at the bang itself, in contrast to a SCU where the laws of physics obviously evolve together with the particles the behavior of which they apply to.

A universe which has a beginning implies a primeval cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition: as BBC therefore cannot explain the origin of mass and energy, it cannot even begin to understand their nature. If to be able to speak about a bang, this means that the quantity being created must be finite, then this begs the question who or what determined the quantity to be created: after all, if we assume that there is nothing outside the universe so it doesn’t matter how much is created, then the quantity created cannot make any difference as to the fate of the universe. BBC therefore actually has no idea what mass is, how something can come out of nothing, how the particles arrived at the properties they have and why we find the physical laws and constants of nature we find, how the universe came to be isotropic and homogeneous and why its expansion doesn’t slow down despite gravity between galaxies which should slow down the expansion.

In a SCU every observer sees clocks run slower and show an ‘earlier’ time as they are more distant, so if we define particles to be in an earlier evolutionary phase as their (observed) energy is smaller, then objects look to be in an ‘earlier’ phase as they are more distant, as if looking farther, we look farther back into the past, which, as argued in the previous chapters, in a SCU we don’t. Since mass in a SCU preferably is created at rest, this automatically produces the uniform mass distribution we observe in contrast to BBC which had to invent a cumbersome mechanism –cosmic inflation– to ‘explain’ this homogeneity and isotropy.

BBC therefore describes a fictitious universe: if the Big Bang-, Inflation- and Dark Energy hypotheses seem to paint a consistent picture of our universe, then this isn’t because they are true but because they are designed, crafted to fit observations instead of following from first principles, because they are based on the same conceptual error. BBC therefore is doomed to keep patching its flaws with subsequent hypotheses which, designed to disguise, circumvent or hide its flaws, necessarily will be flawed themselves, flaws which in turn will breed new, flawed hypotheses. And flawed they are: cosmic inflation, for example, is supposed to have been powered by a hypothetic false vacuum energy. The inflation is thought of as a phase transition where a metastable system as it flips into a lower-energy state, liberates energy which causes some event –in this case, to power the desired inflation. The concept of this ‘false vacuum energy’ implies the energy content of the universe to be infinite, unless we arbitrarily limit the energy of the virtual particles (which according to the present interpretation of the UP, fill all of spacetime) to the Planck frequency:

“Quantum theory predicts that the vacuum of space in the universe is filled with low-energy electromagnetic waves, random in phase and amplitude and propagating in all possible directions. … When integrated over all frequency modes up to the Planck frequency, ν_P (~ 10⁴³ Hz), this represents an enormous potential source of energy with a density of as much as ~ 10¹¹³ J/m3 which is far in excess of any other known energy source even if only an infinitesimal fraction of it is accessible. … This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point 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. A minority of physicists do, however, accept it as a real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. From this perspective, the ordinary world of matter and energy is like foam atop the quantum vacuum sea. It does not matter to a ship how deep the ocean is below it.”

What strikes me, time and time again, is the obviousness with which physicists look at the universe and what’s inside of it as if looking from outside of it, the assumption that particles, real and virtual just exist, without once asking themselves this most crucial question: With respect to what do they exist? What do they owe their existence to? Though energy is thought to be an unequivocally positive quantity, if these waves indeed are “random in phase and amplitude and propagating in all possible directions” then they should, on average, cancel everywhere –in which case we would have no vacuum energy to drive the desired inflation. By assuming that the energy of particles only is the cause of interactions, energy is thought to come for free (which contradicts the idea that it is a positive quantity), as something which has no cause itself, as if it is a property of spacetime, of the universe as a whole, as if it is something which can be observed from without. This hypothetical vacuum energy is thought to be uniformly distributed over spacetime, the problem being that as it is a property of spacetime, independent of its size, it cannot reach a ‘critical mass’ and cause things to happen as it then would change its own nature.

Though the uncertainty principle is thought to mean that the vacuum is filled to the brim with virtual particles of all possible energies and hence contains a huge if not infinite amount of energy, the fallacy is that we assume that particles would keep existing even when isolated from interactions: that we take their presence for granted, that they only can cause events to happen, but are not themselves the product of anything. In a SCU particles only exist to each other if they interact, express their existence –which they do by continuously borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist: being as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, they obviously cannot have any surplus energy to cause an inflationary phase transition. As the cosmic inflation therefore cannot be powered by vacuum energy, it remains as inexplicable as the big bang hypothesis the flaws of which it was supposed to correct.

As in a SCU the mass of particles is the source and product of their interactions, they tend to be created at the mass center of all objects they owe their energy to: as they contract at positions where the forces are equal from all directions, this unavoidably leads to a uniform mass distribution of the universe so here we need no inflation to explain observations.

Similarly, the dark-energy hypothesis, designed to explain why the supposed expansion of the universe doesn’t slow down despite gravity between galaxies, raises more questions than it solves. As the density of this energy is supposed to stay constant in time (so this energy similarly is a property of spacetime rather than something which powers its expansion, there’s energy created out of nothing at a rate proportional to the expansion of the universe. This goes against the gist of the Big Bang hypothesis which was expressly designed to limit the violation of conservation laws, the one-off creation of a finite quantity of massenergy out of nothing, as if a sin can be forgiven if committed only once. To try to quantify the expansion of the universe, its size and energy content only makes sense if there is something outside the universe with respect to which a different magnitude matters: if it interacts with something outside of it, that is, if it has been created by some outside intervention.

If, as argued, mass in a SCU has the inclination to keep creating itself, the ‘lust’ to keep creating itself known as ‘gravity’, and mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then spacetime obviously has a corresponding tendency to keep being created, though this creation is not like the BBU expansion where the universe is supposed to grow bigger as a whole even.

According to the UP a particle which pops up with an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime, i.e., has always existed and will always exist: as its position in space and hence in time then is completely indefinite so it has no position to act from and express its existence, then such particle doesn’t exist in actual fact. However, as long as its energy isn’t exactly zero, as long as there is an uncertainty about its energy, whether it exists or not, an uncertainty which also depends on the observing particle the energy of which likewise to some extent is uncertain, there’s no guarantee that it won’t interact sometime, that always will stay ‘uncreated’, that it cannot be trapped into interactions and forced to keep existing, so to say.

If we were to define the birth date of a particle as the time its energy exceeds some arbitrarily chosen threshold value, then du moment a particle pops up somewhere, the mass it finds in its environment is created at the time it is created itself. So as far as this particle is concerned, the mass which we observe already to exist before we see the particle pop up, does not exist to that particle and never will. If the particle starts interacting with objects which according to us already are present before its birth, then the mass the particle and the object have according to one another increases, is created as their distance decreases. In other words, if the previously existing mass must remain outside the IH of the new-born particle, then this can be done either by making the distance from the particle to such pre-existing mass infinite (which might be achieved by a receding motion of such objects, i.e., in an expanding universe), or by hiding a part of it behind the event horizon of black holes so prevent it from interacting with the particle. Since mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, of distance in space and time, the pre-existing mass automatically distances itself in space and time from the new-born particle if it pops up where the field peters out, at its ‘edge’. If the mass of particles and the objects they form is both the effect as the source of the force between them, and the force between a particle of, say, 1 gram and a black hole of, say, 1,000 Sun-masses is equal to that of a particle of 0,001 gram and 1,000,000 Sun masses at the same distance, then we can as well say that it is the continuing mass increase of the black holes at the center of a galaxy which enables the creation of particles at the rim of its IH and vice versa, the continuing creation of particles at that rim which, after evolving, contracting to stars, eventually end up in the hole themselves, feeding it mass.

The creation of mass in a BBU, in present General Relativity Theory, on the other hand, remains incomprehensible:

”There is however one conceptual problem in GRT. [..]: the definition of density. In pre-relativistic times we were accustomed to define the density of a quantity by the ratio of the amount of this quantity and of the volume element in which it is contained. This ratio or, for spatially varying quantities its limiting value, when the size of the volume element approaches zero, could be considered as the local density value of the corresponding quantity. According to the concept of GRT, however, the size of a volume element depends on the metric and thus on the distribution of matter or energy in the surrounding space. Thus there is no longer a unique definition of density in the conventional sense. But Einstein easily found a way out of this situation. As a local quantity, which should enter the field equations, he defined the density in the ’tangential space’, that means the density value one would measure, if all the surrounding masses were removed to infinity. In this way the problem of a unique definition is solved, but at the cost of another one. Calculation of the integral of the so defined density over the region of an extended mass distribution, the result is different from what we would get by counting the number of atoms and multiplying it with their characteristic mass. For the example of a spherically symmetric mass distribution, for which the exact solution of the Einstein equations is known, to the first approximation the difference is just the value of potential energy, that means the binding energy, which according to Newtonian theory has to be supplied, to distribute the mass into infinite space against the action of gravitation [..]. But which of the two different values of the mass determines the gravitational action to the outside? Is it, as Einstein said, that ’the inertia of mass is enhanced, when ponderable matter is accumulated in its surrounding’ (and according to the principle of equivalence also the gravitational mass), remains it unaffected or does it eventually decrease?”

Ernst Fisher, in An Equilibrium Balance of the Universe

Though Mach’s Principle put Einstein on the right track:

”inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies”

it only led him to the tentative statement that ’the inertia of mass is enhanced’ by the presence of neighboring masses, instead of making that last, decisive step: acknowledge that, if in a universe which can be understood rationally, particles have to create each other, their mass must be as much the effect as the cause of their interactions. In a SCU it is clear what would happen: if all surrounding mass would be removed to infinity, then the particles would be stripped of all mass themselves and vanish. Anyhow, as the mass particles have according to each other depends on their distance, if mass, a gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime, then the continuing creation of massenergy is the creation of spacetime, though this doesn’t result in a BBU-like expansion.

As particles in BBC only are the cause of forces, any equilibrium between particles is an balance between different, opposite forces, each powered by its own, autonomous source, so here the different forces of nature cannot be unified even in principle. If these forces/sources really would be independent, then any equilibrium between particles would be highly unstable: they would either separate or fall and stay on top of each other, in which case the force between them would become infinite. Though the UP forbids them to stay on top of each other as this corresponds to an infinite energy, which the particles then must somehow manage to obtain, it is much more straightforward to just define their rest energy as proportional to the definiteness in their position. To explain why ordinary matter nevertheless is stable, the UP is interpreted to say that it takes energy to increase the definiteness in the position one particle has according to the other, in their distance, to push them together, just as it takes energy to pull them apart. The problem is that this explanation distinguishes two kinds of energy, a variable energy associated with the motion or conditions a particle finds itself in, (kinetic and potential energy), and a constant, God-given rest mass, bestowed upon them at the bang, as if their rest mass is an absolute, ‘divine’ quantity in contrast to their ‘behavioral’ mass. Obviously, in a SCU even the ‘rest’ mass of particles is a relative quantity, since whether, and to what extent a particle is at rest depends on the observing particle: the farther they are apart, the less definite their distance is, the less the term ‘rest’ applies.

Anyhow, if we define the (rest) energy one particle has according to the other as being greater as their distance is smaller, less indefinite, then we need no independent, qualitatively different forces, kinds of charge to explain equilibrium states. If we insist that particles only are the cause of forces, and the apparently different kinds of forces indeed prove to be equally strong at some very high Grand Unification Theory (GUT) energy, then we still haven’t unified them as they still exist as separate forces, each with its own, independent source. Unification means that we find their common origin, the use, the why of the different properties, that by some symmetry operation we can transform one force into the other.

If a SCU only exist as seen from within, then (inside) observers at all times should see galaxies in all possible evolutionary phases: the universe would look about the same to all observers provided that the observers and conditions at the observation post are similar. However, the observation or interaction horizon of every observer is limited: the smaller the energy of an observing particle, the smaller the energy is of the observed objects, the earlier the evolutionary phase they are observed to be in, so its universe is as old as it is itself. So whereas a BBU looks about the same to all contemporary observers, in a SCU the observation or interaction horizon, the energy of observed objects, the apparent evolutionary phase they are in depends on the energy of the observing particle. Though in a SCU galaxies may merge and new galaxies may appear, as discussed, the more or less virtual particles of the gravitational field of a galaxy evolve to higher energies as they slowly migrate, spiralling towards the center of the galaxy, condensing, contracting to stars which eventually end up in its central black hole. In a SCU a galaxy to some extent is a self-sustaining machine: as the mass of the central hole increases, it keeps creating mass within its interaction horizon, mass it eventually consumes. ‘To some extent’– as particles only can contract to stars and galaxies if galaxies contract to clusters of galaxies, etc., so galaxies owe their energy to each other, unlike the universe which, as a whole, is a perpetuum mobile, yielding as much as it costs: nothing.

If mass keeps being created in galaxies and would accumulate in time, then the universe would look different to identical (inside) observers at different times, so if conservation laws forbid this in a SCU, then there must be some mechanism which keeps the earlier created mass outside the interaction horizon of newly created particles. One of Nature’s clever paradoxes is that as it is mass which makes different positions in its vicinity different physically to an observing particle, the creation of mass is creation of spacetime, of distance. Whereas the mass of the central hole (and galaxies which already exists to one observer), as it keeps increasing, cannot but create new, low-energy particles at the rim of its IH, this mass increase at the same time is a distance increase. Unlike a BBU where this self-creation mechanism would be observed as an expansion of the universe, according to the newly created particles the mass of the central hole, the evolutionary phase they see that object in, depends on their own energy, so the large mass the hole has to an observer near the hole has no reality to these ‘new’ particles. If, according to the Schwarzschild solution of Einstein’s field equation, a measurer pushed into the field of a black hole, near its event horizon, shrinks to zero length, then as seen from within its horizon, the distance to objects outside of it would be infinite, effectively preventing the inside mass to be expressed, to interact with outside masses. In GR the hole can only have a non-zero radius because it assumes mass to be only the cause of fields and forces: as in a SCU mass is something which only is preserved by means of a continuous two-way traffic of energy, and the outward flux is impossible, then the mass inside the horizon cannot be expressed outside of it, so its radius in a SCU is zero. Whereas mass in CM, in BBC and GR is an absolute, privately owned quantity, something which, but for practicalities, can be observed even from without the universe, in a SCU it is a relative quantity: as much the product as the source of forces, here forces and mass densities never become infinite. In a SCU the interaction horizon of an observing particle or observer therefore is limited, the matter already present before the creation of the particle or (the particles of the) observer inaccessible to interaction, to observation.

If in a SCU particles in every phase of their evolution are source and product of their interactions, then processes in galaxies must be part of the design, the creation process of particles and vice versa, of the evolution of particle properties and associated laws of physics. The smaller their energy is, the weaker their interactions are, the less they affect each other’s behavior, the less definite their distance is, the less definite the laws are governing their behavior or the less strict they obey such laws, the greater their freedom of behavior is, the weaker their interactions are, the lower, the less definite their energy is, the frequency they exchange energy at, the smaller their energy is, the … If energy can be defined to be less indefinite if is higher and a distance between particles to be less indefinite as it is smaller, then physical laws evolve, become less indefinite, become more compulsory to particles as their energy increases, as they contract, evolve to higher and higher energies, so with every energy there’s an associated equilibrium distance. The higher, the less indefinite the frequency they exchange energy at, the smaller, the less definite their equilibrium distance is and vice versa. Only when we disturb their balance it manifests itself as a force, attractive if we push them together, repulsive if we pull them apart, a force which is greater as their energy is higher.

In blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies, so it takes increasingly more energy at higher temperatures to increase the temperature of the blackbody with one degree, the blackbody serving as heat sink. Indeed, if more particles are to contract within a smaller volume, then they must shed the lower, less definite or less orderly frequencies from the (blackbody) spectrum of frequencies they exchange energy at with the different particles in their near and far environment, the lower frequencies associated with the greater freedom of behavior they have in a less dense particle cluster. If by radiating away energy in lower frequencies, this on absorption elsewhere adds to the energy of other, low-energy particles, then the galaxy indeed creates at its periphery the mass it consumes at its center. So whereas the observable universe of an observer in a BBU is limited, its diameter supposedly increasing at the speed of light, a SCU has a different kind of limit: here it is the energy of the observing particle which determines its interaction horizon, how its universe looks like.

We can distinguish a weak, attractive gravity which is the expression of mass’ intrinsic inclination to keep increasing, creating itself and powering time, and a strong gravity which, as attractive as it is repulsive, powers is powered by the continuous energy exchange between particles by means of which they express and preserve each other’s mass, an exchange the effects of which only become observable when their equilibrium is disturbed. If all kinds of forces between particles contribute to the mass they have according to each other, to the frequency they exchange energy at, then the equivalence principle would allow us to call any force ‘gravity’, whatever its cause or origin. If particles only are the source of forces then an equilibrium between particles is a balance between different, opposite forces each powered by its own, independent source, then any equilibrium would be too unstable to last. The problem of CM is that on the one hand, it assumes that the mass or charge of a particle is a finite, objectively observable constant quantity, a privately owned property, which, however, on the other hand nevertheless is able to power an infinite force upon another particle, as if its self-energy is infinite, which contradicts the UP according to which it takes energy to put two particles closer together to increase the force between them. However, if there can be no prototype metre bar nor prototype kilogram outside the universe to compare the dimensions and mass of inside particles to, then such properties cannot be the privately owned, i.e., interaction-independent quantities they are in CM. So if properties only exist, are expressed and preserved within interactions between particles, then this must mean that it is not the mass of particles, but the mass ratio between particle species which is a constant quantity, between the frequencies they exchange energy at

In CM the distance at which particles are at equilibrium is thought to be the result of two different, opposite forces, each powered by a different kind of charge, the strength of which is supposed to be constant, to not depend on anything: CM cannot explain why, though this would be an extremely unstable equilibrium, regular matter nevertheless is very stable. In contrast, in a SCU particle properties are product and source of forces between them so the distance at which they are at equilibrium isn’t constant, the result of two qualitatively different forces: here their equilibrium distance is a function of the frequency they exchange energy at, of the force between them, a force which is as attractive as it is repulsive, the mass they have according to each other. In the classical picture the mass of particles is a constant, privately owned quantity, powering gravity between them so they contract to stars, their distance decreasing to that value where it is balanced by their electric repulsion, a distance which would be constant if not for the effect of the pressure which in a star increases towards its center. Being both the source and product of particle interactions, in a SCU any force is ambivalent, as attractive as it is repulsive, so here we don’t need two different, independent forces, kinds of charge to explain a particle equilibrium.

If in a SCU the charge sign of particles refers to their energy sign, the phase they are in with respect to each other, and it is the exchange of energy which powers their mass, and energy is an electromagnetic phenomenon, the we already have quantified gravity. The present confusion about weak gravity originates in the belief that the mass of particles is a constant, conserved quantity, a static quantity instead of something which has the intrinsic tendency to increase, keep creating itself. This means that we can no longer distinguish the rest mass of a particle from the mass associated with its behavior, as if it has two, qualitatively different kinds of mass, a constant, ‘divine’ rest mass, and a variable kind, related to its behavior, its velocity.

Since in BBC particles only are the cause of forces so either have a positive or a negative electric charge, here a new kind of force or charge had to be invented, the so-called strong force to explain why an atomic nucleus despite the huge electric repulsion between its protons doesn’t disintegrate. Though the strong force mainly works between the quarks within protons and neutrons – baryons for short, it also works as a residual force between the quarks of neighboring baryons, thereby keeping them together in nuclei.

If both the electric repulsion and the strong attraction between baryons would vary as the inverse square of their distance, then any equilibrium between them would be extremely unstable, short-lived, as would be the atomic nuclei they form. If the strong attraction would keep increasing after it overcomes their electric repulsion (which keeps increasing as they near one another), it would become infinite so nucleus would collapse, whereas if the electric repulsion remains too strong to overcome, no nuclei could be formed. Believing that particle properties only are the cause of forces, to explain the formation of nuclei one had to dream up a so-called asymptotic freedom mechanism to prevent such collapse to happen.

Only if the strong attraction between the baryons for some reason were to become almost independent of their distance once it overcomes their electric repulsion, stable nuclei can be formed. To prevent the nucleus to break up at larger distances, where their repulsion would exceed their attraction, the strong force should, within certain limits, increase as they are farther apart, a feature called color confinement. That is, the attraction between the baryons in nuclei is a residual effect from the strong force between the quarks within baryons: in this explanation the strong attraction between the quarks in baryons is small as long as their distance is small –which, however, is hard to reconcile with the supposedly huge electric repulsion at such distances.

The problem is that QCD is a classical description of what happens as it regards particles as being only the cause of forces: though many predictions of QCD were confirmed by experiment, if we do live in a SCU where their mass is powered by their energy exchange and vice versa, then there should be no need for a new force to balance what only in a BBU is a static electric repulsion between protons. If when the frequency particles exchange energy at is higher, their opposition to a change in their distance is greater, the ambivalent force between them, a single force which is as attractive as it is repulsive as long as the particles are at equilibrium, then what in QCD appears to be a strong attractive force, the phenomena it is supposed to cause, rather is the product of the collision interaction than the effect of an intrinsic, new property, just as the presumed electric repulsion can just as well be seen as the result of the disturbance of their equilibrium than being caused by an intrinsic electric charge, either positive or negative.

If the charge sign of a particle refers to the energy sign, which is a relative quantity, and its sign oscillates, then the fact that a particle nevertheless always acts as if it is either positively or negatively charged doesn’t mean that charge is an intrinsic property of particles. Being the product of its continuous energy exchange with all particles within its IH, it just hasn’t the freedom to jump out of phase relative to the particles it owes its energy, to change its apparent electric charge at will as this would violate energy conservation. Of course, if in a high-energy collision it gets a boost of a large enough energy, it can and will for a short time jump out of sync with the particles within its IH and act like an antiparticle.

So whereas CM assumes that an electron, say, has the same mass and charge no matter the interaction (ignoring relativistic effects), in a SCU we can as well say that it is the interaction which determines to what extent its properties are expressed, what their actual magnitude is in that interaction. In other words, if what we call electric charge refers to the phase particles are in relative to each other, if it is the electromagnetic interplay between particles which powers their mass, a single force which, in equilibrium is as attractive as it is repulsive, then what would we need a new force and associated new kind of charge for?.

If according to Newton’s action = reaction law an attractive force between baryons requires or evokes an equal inward force, directed towards the mass center of the baryons, then we can as well say that the mass of the quarks, their exchange frequency within the baryons, the expression of their mass only increases when we increase the force between the baryons either by pushing them closer together or by pulling them apart, in high-energy collisions, for example. Alternatively, if the definiteness in the position or distance between the quarks within baryons only can increase if the force between the baryons increases like in nuclear fusion or in high-energy collisions, then we can as well say that quarks only appear, are produced at high energies, that they only have a more or less stable existence in multiple-baryon nuclei. The point is that whereas in CM particle properties are absolute, constant quantities which can be measured objectively, as if there exist a prototype kilogram weight outside the universe we might use to compare their mass with, in a SCU particle properties are relative quantities, so here only the mass ratio of different particle species is constant.

Gerard ‘t Hooft:

“Ultimately the masses of the particles of the Standard Model and the strengths of their mutual interactions are determined by a number of fundamental constants of nature. This is a list of 26 numbers … They aren’t prescribed by any theory. It are the independent, free parameters of our model. Almost all are to a certain accuracy deduced from experimental data. This is known as the fine-tuning problem. As seen through the microscope, the constants of nature are adjusted relative to one another with an incomprehensible accuracy. There is something very seriously wrong … If we want to get rid of this implausible fine-tuning, we’ve created a new problem: how can we change the standard model in such a manner that there’s no fine-tuning needed anymore? Our problem now is that our hypothetical hyper-building blocks should have an extremely large mass, at least many times greater than the mass of the object built out of them. It is as if you’re asked to build a hyper-light race bike out of very heavy steel beams. There is one bright spot: nature has given us an example of how this is possible. The pion, namely also exists out of quarks. The pion isn’t much bigger than the proton, and the building-block mass of its quarks also should have to be about 300 MeV. Instead of 600 MeV, the pion is only 135 MeV. This means that there is perhaps a way that particles which are as light as the electron, nevertheless can be thought to be built out of ‘heavier’ building blocks.”

Indeed, as long we cling to the classical idea that particle properties only are the cause of interactions it remains incomprehensible how particles can form a composite object which is lighter than any of its components. A SCU has no such fine-tuning problems as only those combinations of parameters, particle properties, spins, exchange frequencies which survive the trial-and-error test do survive.

Anyhow, the fact that QED predicts to an extreme accuracy quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen by treating the proton as an elementary rather than a composite particle already indicates that we can consider quarks to be the product of baryon interactions as well as being their constituent particles. Whereas the fact that in CM quarks causally precede the baryons they form leads to an insoluble fine-tuning problem, as in a SCU quarks are as much the product as the source of baryon interactions, here there’s no such problem.

So whereas in the classical picture the equilibrium between particles is a balance between two different, opposite forces, each powered by its own, independent source, in a SCU particle properties and equilibrium distances are the product of an on-going evolution, so here a single force, as attractive as it is repulsive suffices to explain the equilibrium.

Only weak gravity, the inclination of mass to keep creating itself, appears to be attractive, ‘appears’ because, as discussed, in a SCU the contraction or creation of mass, of localized energy is accompanied by, impossible without the creation of spacetime between the mass concentrations, so even weak gravity is a paradoxical ‘force’, as attractive at one scale as it is repulsive at the other, fitting a paradoxical universe. The misleading thing about gravity is that in powering the contraction of particles to stars, powering the creation of mass, it effectuates changes, powering time itself, leading to a sequence of events we misinterpret as proof that one is the cause of the other, as if mass, particles, can precede gravity, interactions, fields and forces.

A particle which pops up with an infinitesimal energy has an infinite life span according to the UP: having an infinite wavelength, we cannot determine when a wave crest or through passes us, so its position in space and hence in time is perfectly indefinite, meaning that it always has existed even though its energy is far too small to detect, to affect events, to take its existence for real. As its observed energy also depends on the mass of an observing particle and their distance, so though it may not exist to us, to another observer elsewherewhen it can be real enough, which is the point of the UP: particles don’t just exist or not, as if they are observable even from without the universe –which is the far outdated manner physicists at present look at objects, as if they in some mysterious passively have been created by some outside intervention, but are objects which only exist to one another if and as long as they interact.

A particle then can be said to have a more virtual character as its energy is smaller: the smaller its energy, the less definite its energy is, the less it has to obey physical laws, the greater its freedom of behavior is, the less defined, the vaguer its properties are (which is the real purport of the term ‘virtual’) and the slower it is observed to evolve. If we were to define its birthday as the time its energy exceeds some arbitrarily chosen lower threshold value, but its observed energy also depends on the energy and distance of the observing particle, then it has different birth dates to different observers. From the particle’s point of view, its own energy determines how its world looks like: the smaller its energy, the smaller the energy of observed objects, the younger its universe looks to the particle. So unlike a BBU where an object, a galaxy, say, is the exact same thing to all observers as it is thought of the sovereign source of whatever it may care to emanate, unlike in CM where it is assumed that there’s objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations, in a SCU where particles are both product and source of their properties, a galaxy doesn’t just look different to different observers, it is a different thing. In a SCU two observers/interactors don’t share the exact same universe: the farther they’re apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens at one place is physically related, compulsorycoupled to what happens at the other.

If a particle observes stars and galaxies to have a lower energy, to be in an earlier phase as its own energy is smaller, as it is in an early phase itself, then any observer sees about the same universe as long as the observers and the conditions at the observation post are comparable. Since we consist of particles which already have evolved for a long time, we see galaxies in a phase in which our presence as observers is possible. Whereas in a BBU all objects grow old together so observers in different epochs see a different universe, in a SCU all observers see about the same universe, no matter when they live to look at it, provided the observers and observing conditions are comparable. So whereas a BBU has a beginning as a whole, meaning that it lives in a time realm not of its own making, a SCU doesn’t exist as a whole so cannot have a beginning as a whole: here the universe of an observing particle ‘begins’ as it starts to interact with other particles, as they create one another, contribute to each other’s energy.

In a BBU the formation of stars is pretty straightforward: having been given their properties, their marching orders at the bang, they just contract to stars and galaxies following the course etched in their ‘DNA”, in all decimals of all their properties. In a SCU particles start their life the as virtual particles, their properties ill-defined, their distance indefinite, spacetime less defined as their energy is smaller: evolving to higher and higher energies as they keep contracting, they eventually form stars and galaxies. As seen from a low energy particle at the ‘rim’ of a galaxy, where the galaxy’s field is extremely weak, its galaxy has a very low energy, as if it is in an early phase of its evolution, so to the particle there as yet is no black hole at the center of the galaxy. Only as particles evolve to higher energies, become part of stars which slowly spiral towards the black hole at the center of the galaxy, does that hole start to exist, its mass to increase. So whereas we in the present, outdated view consider the hole as an object which but for practical difficulties can be observed even from without the universe, how its galaxy and universe looks like depends on the observing particle so here objects have a relative kind of existence.

The farther from masses, the weaker the gravitational field somewhere is, the flatter, the emptier spacetime is, the more all positions are equal to observing, evolving particles, the less definite their distance is, the less defined spacetime is, the longer, the less definite the wavelengths they exchange energy at, the smaller their energy is, the weaker their interactions are, the less their existence differs from their nonexistence, i.e., the more they have a virtual existence, the slower they contract, evolve: the less things change, the slower time can said to pass.

If the energy of a particle, its rate of change dE/dt varies within every cycle of its oscillation and every rate of change can be associated with a different evolutionary phase, then a particle as it oscillates repeats in shorthand all such phases in every cycle. If according to the mass definition here proposed, this means that the definiteness in its position varies at the same rate, then that would mean that it periodically is present within different areas. Whereas its position is well defined during the times its rate of change is high, if at the times in every cycle this rate is small, it can be thought of as being smeared out over a large area, to be everywhere during the short period its energy or rate of change is zero, then the question is whether real particles periodically act themselves as the virtual particles of the gravitational field of the star or galaxy they’re part of. If a particle in one phase borrows energy from all particles within its IH to pay it back in the next phase, then we might say that it is present at every particle its owes its energy to, and in turn processes the ‘effects’ of events elsewhere in its own behavior. Obviously, as the energy of the particle is observed to be smaller, to oscillate at a slower pace than it does according to a nearby observer, the particle is a different object to different observers, so they can say that they see the particle at different times, which does agree with the proposition in this study that clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant even if they are at rest with respect to the observer. This certainly isn’t to say that it is an earlier time at places more distant; we can as well say that events happening there, belong to a more distant future to us. Unlike a BBU where we can delude ourselves that we can determine in an absolute sense where it is earlier and where it is later, in a SCU terms like ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ are relative, observer– and interaction–dependent.

To fit with more particles within a smaller volume, to contract and increase their exchange frequency, particles must adjust and coordinate their positions, motions and oscillations in a more orderly, more regular fashion. To contract, their spatial distribution has to become more regular, more symmetric, so their exchange frequencies can increase, become less indefinite, so as more particles are packed within a smaller volume, the frequencies they oscillate at increase, converging to within a smaller frequency interval, just like Planck's law of black-body radiation says it must. To get rid of some of the freedom of behavior which interferes with a further contraction, the particles radiate away energy in the associated lower, less definite frequencies, so their energy can increase, become less indefinite, their behavior more precisely, more compulsory obeying the physical laws which rule or describe their motion.

”It [thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced that, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, will never be overthrown.” A Einstein

If ‘less definite’ ≡ less orderly and this equates with a higher entropy, then the entropy of particles is lower as their energy is higher, less indefinite, so the entropy would be minimal at the center of a black hole, as it is more massive. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat only can flow from a hotter to a colder body, from high to low temperatures; in another formulation it says that the disorder within a closed system only can increase in time. The problem is that a BBU is not a closed system since to have particular properties and be in a particular state as a whole requires that there’s something outside of with respect to which these properties/states matter, that is, if it interacts with whatever is outside of it. Only a SCU, a universe which obeys the law according to which what comes out of nothing must add to nothing is a truly closed system, so if it cannot be in some particular state as a whole, then from an imaginary observation post outside of it, we cannot speak about its entropy, nor say that time passes inside of it, so this law, in the present formulation makes no sense at all. This law only would hold in a universe which has a beginning as a whole, where particles only are the cause of their interactions, in CM. If when the universe cannot have a particular entropy (or temperature!) as a whole, then this must mean that an increase at one place is accompanied by a decrease elsewhere in which case things only can heat up if it cools down elsewhere. Though we’re used to processes which tend to equalize the temperature everywhere as objects cool down and heat up their environment, if no heat can enter or leave the universe, if it cannot, as a whole, have any particular temperature, then in a SCU the temperature only can increase somewhere if it decreases elsewhere.

If less definite, lower exchange frequencies between particles can be associated with a higher entropy and lower temperatures, then according to Planck’s law, the temperature of a star can only increase if on contracting it radiates away energy in lower, ‘cooler’, i.e., less orderly frequencies, if its energy exchange shifts to higher frequencies, within a smaller frequency range, so its entropy decreases as it heats up. If in ‘empty’ spacetime, where the gravitational field is weak, the energy of the more or less virtual particles is small, and this corresponds to a high entropy, a low temperature, and an area of spacetime is emptier where the field gradient is flatter, a gradient which is flatter as its source is heavier, then we can indeed say that as a star heats up as it contracts, as it makes its environment hostile for massive particles in its vicinity to be at rest, then in this sense stars cool their environment as they contract and heat up. So instead of a BBU which supposedly has cooled down, as a whole, until particles start to contract to stars, in a SCU we cannot speak about the temperature of the universe as it is a different thing to different observers: the smaller the energy of an observing particle, the ‘cooler’ it is, the less defined, the ‘cooler’ its universe is.

Temperature is related to energy, so if energy is a quantity which is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next, equal to its rate of change, then the same should hold for heat. The temperature of the particles of a star refers to the frequency they exchange energy at, alternate between a phase in which they absorb, borrow energy and a phase in which they pay back that energy and more, a phase in which they emit energy and the sign of their own energy is negative. The more particles are packed within a smaller volume, the higher the frequency they alternate a heat-emitting phase with a heat-sucking phase, so to say, the higher the temperature of the star.

If particles are to contract then they must give up some of their freedom of behavior: the more particles contract to within a smaller volume, the more they have to coordinate their distance, motion and oscillation, the frequencies they exchange energy at, the more their energy (exchange) shifts to higher frequencies, to within smaller frequency interval, so the temperature of the cluster increases, to become higher as it is more massive. If according to the UP the energy, the mass of the cluster increases on contraction, then so does the force between the cluster and the more or less virtual particles of its field, so if in a SCU the mass of objects is both the product and the source of forces between them, then the mass increase of the cluster ‘enhances’ the mass of the particles of its own gravitational field, so this self-creation pays its own way, keeping in mind that cluster only can contract in concert, if they contract everywhere. In this scenario galaxies create at their periphery the virtual, low-energy particles which, after evolving to higher energies as they condense, contract to stars, stars which slowly spiral towards the center of the galaxy, eventually evolving to neutron stars and black holes before disappearing in the hole at the center of the galaxy. If stars only exist within a broad but limited range of conditions, gravitational field strengths and observers only see a similar universe if they are comparable physically and look from similar conditions, then in a SCU they should at all times see about the same universe. However, if similar observers are to see a similar universe no matter when they live to look at it, and the mass of the central hole keeps increasing, then that mass should stay outside the interaction horizon of newly created particles, which it is in a SCU where the (observed) energy and evolutionary phase of an observed object depends on the energy of the observing particle and their distance, so similar observers in similar conditions will always see a similar universe.

Though in a SCU particles are both product and source of their interactions, it is unclear how particles can ‘condense’ out of a gravitational field, how they can evolve to the well-defined particles we know, how quarks create one another, form baryons, baryons which can absorb and produce electrons and in the process change their identity, how they can form the hydrogen atoms we observe to contract to stars. The velocity of visible matter, of gas clouds in orbits about galaxies, for example, is observed to be much higher than corresponds to Keppler’s laws, as if there’s far more mass within the orbit than is visible. Instead of roughly decreasing as the square root of the orbit radius, the orbiting velocity of such clouds in large orbits is almost independent of the orbit radius. To explain this, galaxies are assumed to contain dark matter, called ‘dark’ because it doesn’t seem to interact with radiation, suggesting that it consists of some unknown, non-baryonic kind of matter.

Though a gravitational field contains energy which is itself a source of gravity, because it is believed that it cannot be localized, it is assumed that the field itself doesn’t contain mass, so in this view dark matter must have another origin. However, if according to the definition here proposed, the mass of particles is greater as their position is less indefinite, which it is nearer masses, then the field does contain mass in the form of the virtual low-energy particles, though it is unclear whether it contains enough mass to explain the observed high orbit velocities. If and when dark matter is the nursery where virtual, low-energy particles are in the process of evolving to higher energies, to real particles, then their interactions with radiation proceeds in a variety of relatively low frequencies, in a more or less continuous spectrum, so are unobservable, unlike the sharp spectral lines which betray the presence of atoms. Speculating, another possibility is whether, if stars only live, are formed within a limited range of conditions such as the strength of the gravitational field of the central black hole of the galaxy, the hole’s mass might be much greater than it’s assumed to be. If stars only are observed in an area where the field strength of the central hole has certain values, where the gradient is quite flat, then the distance of the stars to the hole, as measured within the field, might be much greater than assumed. In that case the difference in the orbit radii, and hence in the orbit velocities may be much smaller than presumed. The point is that only in a BBU the rest mass of objects only is the source of forces, so is an absolute, constant quantity, so here mass and space are different quantities, so mass only affects, curves space, whereas in a SCU we cannot really distinguish where mass ends and space begins. If in a SCU we cannot independently measure the orbit radius and the mass of the source of the field, then we cannot infer that mass from the observed orbit velocities.

However this may be, there must be a phase where the virtual particles make the more or less irreversible transition to real ones, a transition which may be observable in sharp spectral lines. As in a SCU such lines are observed to be shifted farther to red as the source particles are more distant, this would result in a blackbody radiation associated with a certain temperature so the question whether the observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) originates in such process?

In BBC the CMBR is thought to originate from the time matter and radiation decoupled:

“During the earliest stages radiation and matter interacted with each other: as long as the high temperature ensured that this matter was ionized and hence was charged, the radiation was scattered, mainly by free electrons. After about 380,000 years [after the big bang] matter became neutral and decoupled from radiation: from that moment radiation and matter hardly interfered with each other anymore. The many interactions before decoupling implied a thermodynamic equilibrium, and hence one temperature and a blackbody spectrum for the radiation. Once independent, this radiation had to retain this spectrum, with a temperature which decreased inversely proportional with the scale factor of the universe.”

This, however, is a classical explanation: if in a SCU the ‘speed’ of light is not a velocity so an energy transmission is instantaneous, then photons don’t exist as separate objects moving between and being independent from the massive particles they are exchanged by –in which case we cannot say that matter and radiation decouples. Whereas the CMBR in a BBU is fossil radiation, in a SCU it is produced as we speak.

Fred Hoyle, responsible for coining the term ‘Big Bang’ rejects the Big Bang hypothesis and question the origin of the CMBR radiation:

“It is often stated that the big bang cosmology explains the microwave background. It does no such thing, of course. Big bang cosmology assumes the microwave background, and it does so in a quite arbitrary way, requiring the baryon-to-photon ratio to be close to 3 × 10 ^{– 10}, without offering a convincing explanation for this number, which could just as well be anything at all.”

In another paper, Hoyle c.s. offer an alternative explanation for this radiation:

“It has been known for many years that the energy density of the microwave background is almost exactly equal to the energy released in the conversion of hydrogen to helium in the visible baryonic matter in the universe [..] Thus the energy released in the production of this He through the conversion H → He is 4.5 × 10^{– 13} erg/cm³, which if thermalized gives a radiation field of 2.78 K.”

The question then is whether this is the more or less irreversible reaction which completes the transformation of virtual particles to real ones? Whereas in a BBU quarks and leptons causally precede baryons, and protons and electrons precede Hydrogen, if the CMBR indeed is produced in the Hydrogen → Helium reaction, and in a SCU quarks are both the product and source of baryon interactions, then the question is whether the H → He reaction completes the more or less irreversible transformation of virtual particles to real ones?

To summarize:

1. Big Bang hypothesis doesn’t offer any explanation as to the origin of the matter and energy created, unlike a SCU where this is self-evident.
2. BBC, in violating the most important physical law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, states that the universe has been created by some outside intervention, thereby making it incomprehensible by definition.
3. If the quantity of matter and energy created at the bang is finite, then this begs the question as to what or who determined that quantity, or, if there is nothing outside the universe, that quantity cannot matter, affect its fate, whereas if the quantity created is infinite, the bang still is happening, in which case it doesn’t make any sense to speak about the state of the universe as a whole.
4. In a BBU it is not clear why the inertial and gravitational mass would be equal; in a SCU this, again, is obvious. Also we need no Higg’s particles or fields to explain the origin of mass –which the Higg’s mechanism doesn’t anyway as this requires that we know the origin of the Higgs particle itself.
5. As a Big Bang wouldn’t produce the observed homogeneity of the universe, an artificial, far-fetched mechanism –‘Cosmic Inflation’ – had to be invented to make up for this flaw, unlike a SCU where this homogeneity is the self-evident result of self-creation.
6. In a BBU the linear relation between the redshift of galaxies and their distance only can be ‘explained’ by assuming the existence, or rather, the continuous creation of a mysterious dark energy, begging the question what we would need a bang for if things can keep being created. This is in contrast to a SCU which predicts this linearity without needing to invent any magical stuff or mechanism.
7. A BBU is a ‘Laplacian’ wind-up universe, an automaton-like machine which, once created, wound up, only can run its predestined course –begging the question as to what purpose it might serve.
8. In a BBU forces either are attractive or repulsive so they aren’t even unifiable, unlike a SCU where only gravity is attractive as it is the manifestation of the self-creating process. Because of this, many physicists have wasted time on a theory (String Theory) which for reasons of principle cannot solve anything as it starts from the invalid premise that particles only are the source, the cause of fields and forces. As in a SCU particles are as much the product as the source of forces, it lacks the infinite self-energies and singularities inherent to a BBU.

The conclusion is that there has never been a hypothesis in physics which has more damaged and obstructed its progress than Big Bang Cosmology.

Notes

ABBREVIATIONS

BB Big Bang

BBC Big Bang Cosmology

BFPD But For Practical Difficulties

BBU Big Bang Universe

BFPD But For Practical Difficulties

CM Classical Mechanics

CC Cosmic Clock, shows cosmic time, the time passed since the bang

CMBR Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

CP Cosmological Principle

GR General Relativity

IH Interaction Horizon

IP Indefiniteness Principle (= Uncertainty Principle)

QM Quantum Mechanics

MW Milky Way

OI Outside Intervention

PCP Perfect Cosmological Principle

QCD Quantum ChromoDynamics

QED Quantum ElectroDynamics

SCU Self-Creating Universe

SSU Steady State Universe

SM Standard Model

SR Special Relativity

UC Uncertainty Principle

About me

I studied chemistry at the Eindhoven University of Technology, stopped halfway between BS and MS, and, by self-study, familiarized myself with physics to what perhaps is an undergraduate to BS level.

Publications:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/492

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/838

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328

I started my study of physics with Richard Feynman’s magnificent Lectures on Physics, and remember to have read, in no particular order:

Inward Bound: Of matter and forces in the physical world - A Pais (1986)

The elegant universe -B Greene (1999)

Introduction to high-energy physics, 3rd ed. - H Perkins (1987)

Gauge theories in particle physics 2nd ed. - I. J. R. Aitchison; A. J. G. Hey (1988)

The Ideas of Particle Physics - G. D. Coughlan; J. E. Dodd; B. M. Gripaios 2nd ed. (1991)

Quantum mechanics 3rd ed. - L I Schiff (1955)

Quantum Field Theory - D M Kaku (1993)

Lie Algebras in Particle Physics - H Georgi (1982)

Quantum Electrodynamics – R Feynman (1962)

Elementary Particle Physics and the Laws of Physics - R Feynman, Steven Weinberg (1986)

The Character of Physical Law - R Feynman (1967)

Theory of fundamental processes - R Feynman (1962)

The Meaning of Relativity, 6th ed. - A Einstein (1967)

A first course in general relativity - B F Schutz (1985)

General relativity from A to B - R Geroch (1978)

A short course in general relativity - J Foster, J D Nightingale (1979)

Essential relativity revised 2nd ed. - W Rindler (1979)

The Elusive Neutrino - N Solomey (1997)

The force of symmetry – V Icke (1997)

Warped Passages, Lisa Randall (2005)

Cosmology: a very short introduction, Peter Coles (2001)

From Quarks to the Cosmos, L M Lederman, D N Schram (1989)

The God Particle: If the universe is the answer, what is the question? (1993)L M Lederman [Dec 2011]

Cosmic Clouds, James B Kaler (1997)

The search for Infinity, G Fraser, E lillestol, I Sellevag Yukawa (1994)

Wrinkles in Time, G Smoot en K Davidson (1993)

Dreams of a Final Theory, S Weinberg (1993)

Towards the final laws of physics, S Weinberg (1990)

The Quark and the Jaguar, M Gell-Mann (1994)

The elusive neutrino, Nickolas Solomey (1977)

A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime, J A Wheeler (1990)

What remains to be discovered, John Maddox (1998)

Histoire et légendes de la supraconduction, S Ortoli & J Klein (1989)

Vacuüm is niet niks, F W Saris (2001)

Uncertainty, the life and science of Werner Heisenberg, DC Cassidy, 1992

The Universe in a Nutshell, S Hawking (2001)

The Arrow of Time, P Coveney, R Highfield (1990)

Einsteins Spuk, A Zeilinger (2005)

Turn Right at Orion: Travels Through the Cosmos, M C Begelman (1990)

Schrödinger, life and thought. Walter Moore (1989)

Gravity’s Fatal Attraction: Black Holes in the Universe, M Begelman, M Rees (1995)

Kosmologie - A Achterberg (2002)

De wetenschap van de kosmos – C Waelkens (2007)

De bouwstenen van de schepping - G ’t Hooft (1992)

An Introduction to Cosmology - J V Narlikar (2002) [read in September 2011]

A Different Universe (2005) – Robert B. Laughlin [read in December 2011]

Geons, black holes, and quantum foam (1998) J. A. Wheeler [December 2011]

Not even Wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law (2006) Peter Woit [January 2012]

The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of Spring Theory: The Fall of a Science and What comes Next (2006) Lee Smolin [April 2012]

The Road to reality: a complete guide to the laws of the universe (2004) R. Penrose [May 2012]

The Black Hole War (2009) L. Susskind [May 2012]

Dark Cosmos (2006) D. Hooper [May 2012]

A Universe From Nothing: Why there is Something Rather than Nothing (2012) Lawrence M. Krauss [Dec. 2012]

The Lightness of being: Mass, Ether and the Unification of Forces (2008) Frank Wilczek [Feb. [2013]