The Diversity of Space

How the Universal Substrate and its contents vary

Plurality, Mathematics & Reality:

The concept of a Universal Substrate involves many different features, which bothered nobody when the alternative of Totally-Empty-Space was taken instead. For then, you would not need to worry about a boundary of Space, when it is Empty - for in-or-out, what's the difference?

In addition, neither would such a background ever be distorted by the presence of large concentrations of matter. For, there would be absolutely nothing to distort (leaving aside idealistic abstractions such as spacetime, for the moment)!  

And also, any projectiles, fired into such a void, would encounter nothing to slow them down: they would simply carry on forever as they are! 

So, why are we so adamant that this Total Emptiness is the case? 

It is the oldest trick that Man ever learned:- 

"Make everything as simple as possible, and you will be able to begin to understand it!"

EXCEPT, of course, that, in this case, it does leave many known phenomena totally unexplained.

So, what do you do?

You conceive of "influences" which can reach across Empty Space - Gravity being the first! But, how can they possibly do that? That question also appears to be unanswerable too.

So, to add to Simplification, Mankind devised Idealism, where non-physical influences are brought in to do the job.

And finally, we resorted to Form (Mathematics), where Empty Space itself has a "Form", and this could be curved, so what appears to be a caused-deflection ISN'T - it is merely an entity inexorably following that curvature.

Do you think I am kidding? I am not!

Mankind was faced with many inexplicable things, until they were able to hold-things-still, when certain features seemed to persist. We imagined that many simultaneous things were happening together, and that his holding-it-still removed many of those, and also exposed an "actual natural property". And though, at that early stage, it was only vaguely realised, Man had already begun to subscribe to a new principle - that of Plurality, which the scientific majority generally continues to believe-in to this very day.

It took a while to mature, but by the time of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, of 2,500 years ago, it certainly enabled a whole applicable-and-extendable discipline to be constructed, via producible and manipulate-able Theorems and Proofs.

This was Geometry, and it quickly led to what we know today as Mathematics. In this System of eminately-relatable ideas, all elements were reduced to their most minimal definitions -

Dots - of zero extension, but precise position.

Lines - of zero thickness but connecting precise positions.

Planes - of zero curvature and infinite extent, upon which Dots and Lines could be placed.

Particular aspects of the world were severely simplified to allow the study of those also-idealised-forms for further investigation. And, the idealisation of forms was taken further with Squares, Triangles and even Circles, and, in no time at all, these were extended into three dimensions with Cubes, Tetrahedra, Spheres and even such things as Dodecahedra.

Simplification was intimately-wedded to Perfect Forms, and Reality-itself was mapped-onto that artificially defined set. Yet, the biggest leap of all was also about to be introduced.

Symbolic, measureable-forms could be represented by alphabetic letters as placeholders for the full range of values of real things, and relations between them were delivered via carefully-tailored, but nonetheless perfect Equations. But, these were NEVER accurate versions of Reality-as-is!

They were only acquired in carefully arranged-for, "held down" situations: they were simplified-and-idealised versions, only available when taken from artificially-tailored contexts. Remarkably, they were from arranged-for-situations that DID indeed conform to Plurality, while the supposedly represented concrete Reality most certainly did NOT.

Now, there also developed two alternative ways of dealing with any studied part of Reality.

The first was an attempt to explain it in terms of its components and their known properties.

The second, involved the conducting of experiments in carefully arranged-for situations, allowing a series of measurements over a given range to be taken, and the results having a Perfect General Equation of the "right form", taken from the studies of mathematicians, and pragmatically fitted-up to that data.

And these were NOT the same!

The Explanation could only use what was known and its value was delivered by how much Objective Content - parts or aspects of the Truth - it contained.

The Equation would be necessarily-distorted both by its specially arranged-for context and its simplifications and idealisations which would make it both totally pluralistic, and specific to a particular context only.

Space and the Universal Substrate:

Now, having a non-empty Space also removes all those simplifying assumptions which made our conceptions of what happens there so easy to arrive at.

And, of course, instead of a uniform Emptiness absolutely everywhere (including beyond any limits to our Universe), we will have instead, maybe, a non-uniform content, actually affected by what is contained within it, while itself possibly affecting those interlopers, or even their movements through it. And, crucially, it will matter exactly what the Universal Substrate is composed of, and whether its units can relate to one another in a variety of structure modes. Finally, whether that Substrate is composed of a hierarchy of levels, providing very different components and consequent properties throughout.

Now, very clearly, as this theoretical physicist opposes the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, he has, within his researches, with regard to that stance, developed The Theory of a Universal Substrate, which, in contrast to Copenhagen, has managed to supply actual-physical-explanations for most of the anomalous phenomena consequent upon that interpretation.

His objectives, apart from ensuring complete undetectability, whenever such a Substrate was not active, was to address every one of the many anomalies currently totally unexplained by that consensus stance, in The Double Slit Experiments.

His objective, in the light of zero dependable evidence, was to theoretically define and construct a Substrate that could answer each and every one.

Now, before such an objective elicits the usual condemnations, by those of the consensus position, may I insist upon an important principle for such research.

It may well be a speculative leap into the unknown, but not only will the researcher be well aware of that but he will guarantee that the theories will be holist and physical, as distinct from the Copenhagen alternatives, which are always pluralist and idealist.

What Happens in Interstellar Space?

Certain questions just have to be asked, in response to the current total absence of any physical means of communication in so-called Empty Space.

Of course, Einstein's Space-Time continuum provided a non-physical, yet somehow effectible, Reference-System, as a means of formally fitting patterns to what occurs there, but only by taking that basis completely out of physical explanation and endowing the "stage" itself with the necessary formal wherewithal, entirely independent of any physical causes.

So, for gravitational forces elicited directly by Matter, we have the contradictory explanation of a non-material context both being affected-by, while itself affecting, what happens within its aegis.

We, in the past, used to term such inferred intermediaries to be physical Substrates, but as none were ever detected, the substitution of that non-material-framework, justified the purely formal definitions that were already-and-everywhere else erected as parallel alternatives, to the previously always-required physical Explanations.

It fitted-in, directly, if not perfectly, with the positivist stance of Poincaré and Mach, and what soon after became the dominant position of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

Purely formal pattern-fitting was rapidly ousting all Physical Theories, as the true bases of Science, and of the Concrete Reality, which it previously purported to explain in purely physical terms. Truly, a purely idealist-and-pluralist mathematical form of "Theory", along with various, frigged-up "philosophical" justifications, cheek-by-jowl with isolated physical tokens, has totally replaced Science as it used to be considered.

And, the fact that there were many things wrong with the old conceptions, doesn't make this transformation anything other than a major, and ultimately debilitating Retreat! At least, the old contradictory amalgam of stances did enable alternative routes to be taken, with difficult problems, while maintaining Physical Explanations as paramount.

But now, that absolutely crucial banker-component had been jettisoned, and replaced by a totally idealist-and-pluralist discipline, not only as a means of describing Reality, but also as the means of driving it too!

And, this purely form-based approach was highly attractive for several reasons.

First and foremost was the fact that increasing knowledge allowed to-be-investigated situations to be farmed and controlled to such an extent, that formal relations could be fairly easily extracted, and then matched to fitted-up general forms from Mathematics. And these, in turn, allowed achievable predictions to be made, and then successfully implemented - as long as the conditions used in extraction were replicated exactly for use in productions.

In addition, these equations were legitimately pluralist (while the Reality-as-is that they were supposed to represent, most certainly wasn't). And, this allowed the pluralistic rules of Pure Form to be used in developing further, more extensive "formal theories". as if they were Real World generalities.

But, of course, the clearest gains were achieved by the Technologists, whose main motto was still, "If it works, It is right!". and whose extensive Knowledge and pragmatic skills enabled them to always construct the appropriate contexts for effective use!

And, finally, "Space", itself, never ever available under such farmed and controlled conditions, was not only seemingly much closer to the ideal pluralist conditions, but also was beyond our experimental investigation: it could only be passively observed, so the earth-based means of confirmations were unavailable.

The situation was tailor-made for formal equation-fitting PLUS speculation!

Now, an early assumption, attempting to explain phenomena that evidently occurred in "Space", was that it was filled with some invisible Substrate, usually termed The Ether (or luminiferous aether), which both allowed the Propagation of Electromagnetic Radiation, and communicated evident Actions-at-a-Distance, such as Gravitation.

But when it was discounted by the Michelson-Morley Experiment, it was replaced by absolutely Nothing - the ubiquitous Natural Vacuum of Space.

The phenomena still occurred, and have mathematical formulae. which they obey, but as to why they were possible - that was left unaddressed.

Now, it very soon became an untenable stance, so while maintaining the total absence of anything resembling a substrate, there was one kind of interloper that it was considered could be relied upon to deliver everything! It was energetic particles fired into the emptiness of Space, and capable of carrying on as such until they hit something.

Even Electromagnetic Radiation was conceived as coming in quanta - individual gobbets of energy, so they too would also fit the bill: no longer would a propagating substrate be deemed necessary.

But, how do you expand Nothingness?

With the deemed-to-be-essential, faster than the Speed of Light, Inflation, early in the Universe, what exactly was expanded, and how? Forgive me, but this isn't Physics: it is crystal-clear, as a purely mathematical process applied to a Form! It is a purely formal, non-physical solution to problems, which the Universe, as we conceive it, sets for us.

And, how about the Red Shift in light from distant objects?

We infer a Doppler Shift as occurs in sound on Earth, but that effect assumes a physical spatial-or-time dilation or contraction, so how would that occur in Light Quanta? What indeed is the physical form of a Quantum?

How can you stretch a wave without a medium!?

It is conceivable when an electron orbit in an atom is promoted to a higher level by a descrete amount of energy, embodied in an electron going around the atom at a particular radius and speed: that embodies the future quantum = produced when the orbit is demoted again releasing a precise quantum of Energy.

But as what?

I can conceive of a transfer to another receptacle, similar in form to an atom, with and internal orbit. But neither of these seem susceptible to Doppler Shift modifications! And data recorded from observations by the astronomer Halton Arp seem to directly confound the usual interpretation.

And, yet another problem is in the transit of Birkeland Plasma Currents between, say, the Sun and the Earth actually find their targets through supposedly entirely Empty Space? For these have two strands, in close intrinsic proximity to each other going in opposite directions to one another.

How do these actually occur?

Now space rockets and powerful space located Telescopes have revealed Boundaries of the Solar System in supposedly Empty Space causing the Kuiper Belt and the Ort Cloud to take very different forms. And, the Voyager Spacecraft has actually measured these boundaries - begging the question - boundaries in what?

What is the Interstellar "Medium"?
It sounds suspiciously like a Substrate!

This is not by any means a fully worked up answer to the problems posed above: but this theorist has elsewhere developed a definition of an undetectable Universal Substrate - existing in so-called Empty Space which not only addresses the above problems but also all those appearing in the famed Double Slit Experiments credited with delivering the Foundation for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - the current consensus in Modern Sub Atomic Physics!

The latest developments in this new Substrate Theory of Physics can be found in the latest issue of Shape, which looks at the possibility of a medium of Neutrino-based Gravitons, pervading all space.

Issue 59 of the SHAPE Journal

Meta Forces

"Empty" Space

re-posted via Temporal Illusions

The Invisible (yet active) Contents of Empty Space

Following a long investigation into various phenomena revealed since the discovery of the Quantum over a century ago, it becomes increasingly clear that the anomalies that came up could only be addressed in a scientific, explanatory way by the assumption of a physical substrate filling all of so-called Empty Space.

Of course, such a substrate was not an original idea, for it seems an inevitable conception when attempting to explain what actually and persistently happens there, so it has come up before. At one time all scientists believed in such a substrate, which they called The Ether, and though it was entirely a theoretical construct, it did seem to answer many of the questions posed by phenomena of Empty Space.

Indeed, it was on the basis of a conceived-of Ether that James Clerk Maxwell derived his equations of Electromagnetism, which are still used to this day.

But, that theoretical medium was never found! Try as they might, the scientists involved could find nothing that actually fitted the bill, and the whole concept was simply dropped.

Yet, similar undetectables have always been considered, and new ones are added to the list of necessary substances all the time to “theoretically” explain anomalies – from Dark Matter to Dark Energy, and invisible Dimensions galore.

Frankly, there has to be something out there, which is both susceptible and positively reactive, yet cannot, by the usual means, be positively and directly detected. As a theoretical exercise, therefore, this researcher attempted to devise a particle, which was of no net charge, no magnetic effects and remarkably no apparent matter content either. Clearly, the only way, such an entity could possibly exist, was by it being composed of other sub particles with opposite properties, which effectively cancelled out, within such a stable union.

Now, there is a well-established model that could be used as a starting point. It is, of course, The Atom!

It may not, initially, seem appropriate, until we consider its Form and its widespread occurrence throughout the whole of known Reality. In the simplest case, the Hydrogen Atom, it consists of a positively charged proton, orbited by a negatively charged electron. And this delivered a neutral entity, but with an evident net Mass and a magnetic dipole effect.

But, it is remarkably stable, and its two elements are kept apart, in spite of their opposite charges, by the relative speeds they had, on first encounter, which was transformed into the speed of orbiting, and thus kept them apart.

It is not an unusual pattern, for, as we know in Cosmology, Stars, Planets, Moons and even Galaxies follow very similar stable patterns indeed. The question becomes, “Could we construct another joint particle, on the model of the atom, which could cancel out all the properties of its component parts, and thus become undetectable?”

For, if the two components were of exactly equal size and opposite charge, both the net charge and the magnetic effects in the combined particle would be zero.

All that remained and spoiled our intentions was the unavoidable and eminently detectable Mass! Clearly, the question presents itself, “Could we have sub-particles of directly opposite matter types?”

For example, if we used one electron and one positron, with one of ordinary matter and the other of antimatter, perhaps the result might be an undetectable joint particle?

But, not only that!

As with the atom, it could also contain extra electromagnetic energy in the very same way, by the promotion of the orbits to a higher energy level. And, in the same way could release that energy via the demotion of such orbits.

Doesn’t this ring a bell?

Have we not defined a physical Photon?

It would be undetectable as a particle, but could carry energy within it!

But, as well as existing as a “disembodied” quantum of energy, it could also exist everywhere without that extra energy, and be totally undetectable: it could be the basis of an undetectable substrate – as an Empty Photon?

Now, this entity, or something very like it, might well answer quite a few questions currently unexplained in Modern Physics. And, one famous experiment literally cried out for such an entity. It was, of course, The Double Slit Experiment.

But, to play a role in that experiment, this particle would, somehow, have to be literally everywhere, forming some kind of substrate. So, it was, therefore, conceived of as forming a “Universal Paving” composed of these particles – not a liquid or a solid, put a Paving of descrete particles in a close-packed formation, actually filling all of Space.

The problems and anomalies of the whole range of Double Slit Experiments were tackled with this paving as a universal intermediary, between the missiles fired at the Slits, and finally recorded upon an ultimate detection screen, and everything was causally explained!

Yes, absolutely everything, including the vanishing of phenomena when things were attempted to be detected in various regions of the experiment.

Compared to the usual Copenhagen-based standpoint, with its Wave/Particle Duality and Possibility Mathematics, this alternative was infinitely preferable, and didn’t involve the idealistic retreat of the Copenhageners. It was, indeed, worth investigating, and delivered a theory containing more Objective Content than that which it replaced.

As always, of course, such a theory cannot claim to be the Absolute Truth, but using the criterion of containing more Objective Content, it had to replace the usual theory!

The most important unexplained phenomenon in Nature is surely the Propagation of Electromagnetic Energy (such as Light) through totally Empty Space.

Could our suggested paving of these undetectable particles fit the bill? The answer was, once again, a resounding, “Yes!” For, the quanta of electromagnetic energy could be passed on from unit-to-unit, in a bucket-brigade fashion, and the renowned, but unexplained, constant Speed of Light, would now be merely the speed of transfer from one particle of the paving to the next.

And, to cap it all, this actual particle has been observed in the Tevatron at Fermilab, and there termed the positronium

And though, in those circumstances, it was shown to have an incredibly short lifespan before it dissociated back into its components, that is what you would expect there, and it was an assumed stable version that would play the role within such a universal structure as a general paving of Empty Space.

Now, before everyone has a fit, let us be clear what has been achieved here.

It was from the outset a theoretical construct to see if something like this had legs. The positronium (or neutritron, as its devisor has called it) may not be “the Truth”!

But, something like it may actually be involved.

And, as it has turned out in this continuing line of investigations, this particle alone cannot be the sole ingredient that fills the whole of Empty Space, for, in spite of its successes, it has also failed to explain (with its current composition) several other major questions that also have to be answered for such a space-filling substrate.

For example, it cannot explain Fields, both electrical and magnetic, and even more importantly, it cannot explain Gravity.

Yet, why should such a substrate be so simple?

Why should it contain only one kind of elementary unit?

We have a good, general analogistic model, involving the cancelling out of properties via mutually-orbiting sub particles.

Could not space be filled with a variety of such undetectable units, but with different contents and modes of existence? Using the same basic premises, it is surely possible to devise other joint particles with different properties to the neutritron, which because of their differences may well be able to deliver the as yet unexplained features?

The necessary theoretical line was obvious. Could we devise other undetectable particles, which could deliver the other phenomena?

And, in the initial attack upon electrostatic fields, it was attempted using this time, the pair of mirror-image joint particles, which in equal numbers, and moving about randomly could also be effective en mass – for they would cancel out over the population instead of within each and every joint particle. And, by making the joint pairs those of unequally-sized particles, these could deliver effects that the neutritrons could not.

Now, this research is still in the early stages, but already several concepts have been considered – the static paving AND the randomly moving, gas-like entities.

But, as with the matter states of Solid, Liquid and Gas, we can conceive of different states or phases, which could act together to ultimately deliver all the phenomena occurring in Empty Space.

The research proceeds!

Issue 36 of Shape: Space

What exactly is Space? This is a fundamental area. As soon as we attempt to address such a question, and get beyond simplistic “Nothingness”, we find ourselves in serious trouble – for nowhere can we find a total absence of everything – the Ultimate Void!

Perhaps the place we usually consider to deliver it must be so-called Outer Space –the “empty” gaps between the heavenly bodies, but we cannot even be sure of that. Can we say that every single morsel of anywhere (even in that Outer Space) contains absolutely Nothing?

And, the reason for this is surely the very fact of Light Propagation! There can be no doubt that Light is coming in to us from literally every direction, and the more our telescopes improve, the more previously invisible sources are found to exist and can be seen.

Such ideas beg the question “Doesn’t Light need something to propagate it though Space – must it not have some form of vehicle or medium to transmit it?” As you can see, the question isn’t entirely trivial, is it? Our assumption that it is totally empty is a useable simplification, in many circumstances, but it surely is not the last word?

And these questions are not only concerning its nature. For as soon as we get into such questions, other problems arise, for whatever we consider, we have to “ensure” (if that is possible) that what we extract from Reality, and consider and manipulate are valid concepts, and are dealt with via valid methods.

Yes, Space is quite a subject. So, let us proceed!

Read the issue

The Electromagnetic Effects of the Neutritron

If this is the form of the neutritron, then even though overall it will have a zero net charge (like the atom), it will also have a zero net matter (unlike the atom)!

But, that will certainly NOT be the case in close proximity to the joint particle – that is locally!

So clearly in any interactions with other entities, which are physically positioned, so as to definitely be in close proximity, these will certainly be determined by very local conditions indeed!

Let us therefore consider the following image, which superimposes the fields of the two component particles upon their mutual orbit and the surrounding area, as viewed from a position perpendicular to the plane of that orbit.

Clearly, when seen in this way, very close to the joint particle, hardly anywhere is neutral, on either electrical or magnetic criteria. The intended colours for the two fields will, ultimately, in the final version, be RED for the positive electrostatic field, and BLUE for the negative field. In both the strength of the field will be evident from the depth of colour.

We will then clearly see strong electrostatic fields in the close vicinity of each of the sub particles.

And, as these fields overlap, they will neutralise.

Now the decreasing strength of the fields are indicated by the increasing paleness of the colours involved. And where the two fields cancel out completely (particularly in the line between the particles) the zero positions are shown as black dots.

In addition, of course, such a diagram can only present a snapshot instant of a continually changing situation, for as they orbit all fields will be changing continually in all static positions, so that overall there will be NO residual field effects over time – they will average out to zero.

Now, it is extremely revealing to consider the effect upon a static single point (depicted here using the black circle near x). For, due to its shown position it will of course be subject to a strong positive field. But now we have to follow the changes in the field at this point, as the two sub particles move round as they orbit one another.

Let us assume that the rotation is taking place in an anticlockwise direction, so that the orbiting particles approach new positions at z and w. Clearly the positive charge upon our stationary position near x will decline until it reaches ZERO, where the two fields exactly cancel out. Then, as the rotation continues until the moving particles reach y and x, the effect on our position will have risen to a maximum negative value.

Clearly, over a complete cycle this point will suffer a classical complete cycle of oscillation of the field, over time, resulting in the following pattern. 

Now, of course, we still have to consider the unavoidable magnetic effects of the moving charges, which are essential to Maxwell’s formal representation of a disembodied electromagnetic radiation. So, could these necessary components occur too?

Considering our very simple diagram, we have a problem! For, both a single electron and a single positron orbiting together will again cancel their magnetic effects overall.

But, once more concentrating our attention, as with the electrostatics, on the effects during a single cycle of rotation at x, it becomes clear that there will be a magnetic fields, at a maximum at the beginning, which will decline first to ZERO then rise to a maximum in the opposite direction after half a cycle. The N and S magnetic effects will also be reversed, via a midpoint where thery exactly cancel out.

It is becoming clear that the magnetic effects at x will also oscillate, as did the electrostatic effects, but at right angles to the plane of the orbit.

Now, if all this is true, we can see why Maxwell’s purely formal encapsulation of electromagnetic radiation did indeed fit the bill in many circumstances. But rather than the overall effect, it would be in contrast be delivering oscillation effects at local levels. (See the full electrostatic and magnetic trace below).

Now, let us consider the alternatives physically!

Theory One: Electromagnetic radiation is a purely disembodied-yet-energetic oscillation of nothing, which which can hold and propagate energy over otherwise entirely Empty Space!

Theory Two: There is NO disembodied E-M radiation, but there is a joint particle with these E-M properties, which can propagate them either by movement of the receptacle particle, or by passing it on bucket-brigade fashion across a universe-wide undetectable paving of these units.

Now, of course, put like that the choice is surely “no contest”, but the failure to find any such paving, or even explain how such a vast structure could ever have come into existence always condemned such a suggestion as untenable.

Clearly, such a theory demands many as yet unrevealed things about Reality, whereas the other merely attributes all the necessary properties to Empty Space itself – that is to Nothing!

Now, though the new alternative does, in fact, work out nicely for propagation, that is certainly NOT the case with a single electron orbit within an atom. For the reversal of the magnetic component in the delivered propagation within its cycle of oscillation, seems to be impossible to generate directly via such an origin in the atom!

But, this might not be such a problem, if a prior-existing paving unit, with mutually orbiting particles of opposite charge receive merely a gobbet of energy at a given frequency. For the already existing, receiving structure would determine how than energy was internally distributed. Thereafter, both to other such units in propagation and finally given up to something else, the required full Maxwell form would be the quantum being dealt with, NOT as a wave in a medium, but as a pair of mutually orbiting particles with a receptacle-per-quantum.

So, it is merely energy at a given frequency transferred from the promoted electron orbit in the atoms to a paving propagation elsewhere.

Non Empty Nothingness?

On reading about a new experiment, carried out by a team at Chalmers University, concerning the “contents of Empty Space”, I expected to get more evidence for my own speculations upon the very same subject, but instead ended up with many more questions than answers.

We were informed that Empty Space – the complete and total vacuum, is not empty, but teeming with many different particles popping-in-and-out of existence, both into and from, “something”. Clearly, that “something” is important, but in this account the narrative slips from talking about virtual particles to virtual photons (as if they are the same thing). Now, the reasons for these “names” is that they are constantly appearing and disappearing as their “actual mode of existence” so the observers involved prefer to call them virtual.

But clearly, what they are when they are not virtual particles is important. And similarly, what they are when they are not virtual photons is important too!

One assumes that, in spite of their switch in appellation, they are talking about the same things – that is “virtual particles” and “virtual photons” are the two forms in an oscillation, which is either one between visible and invisible modes, or a “substrate” sensitive to the slightest variation in available energy. Either way, we can no longer stay with the total emptiness idea, but will have to explain the nature and causes of such a substrate and its seemingly constant variability.

This seems to be borne out by the identification of the real photons that are the final result of the experiment, as being recognised as such by their lacking of any perceivable mass.

Let us attempt to clarify what they are talking about, before we address their remarkable experiment.

The “known” oscillating in and out of existence of these particle/photons is seen as something very different from Pair Production and Pair Annihilation in high energy Accelerators, where a pair of actual particles – an electron and a positron are seemingly produced from a very high energy photon, and its opposite – the vanishing of an electron and a positron into a high energy photon. The difference with the phenomenon, being considered at Chalmers, is what appears seems to be a pair of photons, which immediately vanish again.

The vagueness in this published account seems to call these entities sometimes virtual photons and sometimes virtual particles, but their experimental apparatus seems to involve a way of interfering with this oscillation to result in the production of a pair of real photons.

NOTE: I can only assume that they only add the adjective “virtual” as they are shame-faced about the conversions to and from matter that would be involved with actual photons and particles.

The only way this writer has been able to make sense of similar phenomena (elsewhere) has been to consider a mutually-orbiting pair, consisting of one electron and one positron. The virtue of this union is twofold.

First, it will have no net electrical charge – the positive charge of the positron will cancel out with the negative charge of the electron.

And second, it will have no apparent matter as equal amounts of matter and antimatter will again cancel each other out.

In addition, such an “invisible” particle will be able to hold a quantum of energy via the promotion of the mutual orbits, and easily pass that energy from one such particle to another.

This joint particle – the positronium or neutritron, becomes an invisible receptacle for a quantum of electromagnetic energy – and when in such a state becomes a Photon!

Now, whether this particular hypothesis is correct or not, isn’t the most important thing here. What is surely crucial is the possibility of something like such particles actually existing!

And as the positronium has indeed been observed at Fermilab (though of infinitesimal duration in such conditions) that certainly adds weight to the idea that a stable form could indeed be possible.

As soon as such particles are brought into situations such as Pair Production and Pair Annihilation, (and maybe even these new phenomena - usually called the Dynamic Casimir Effect, the “seeming magic” dissolves away, and we instead have the possibility of real explanations for the inexplicable anomalies.

The bringing in of such kinds of particles as the actual content of Empty Space, finally explained the anomalous Double Slit Experiments without difficulty.

The crucial concept was to treat Empty Space as non-empty, and consisting of a “Paving” or “substrate” of just such particles. As soon as such a substrate was included, the puzzling phenomena of these experiments were explicable.

Now clearly, there are still many questions about such a suggestion, for though it can explain certain phenomena, it still does not make it true. And, to cope with the establishment of electrostatic and magnetic fields in a similar kind of substrate, it demanded other, different particles to be involved, though the final explanation was the best yet.

To have such a substrate or paving, the components of it must be relatively unaffected by both Gravity and electrostatic charges, and hence how they got to be universally present literally everywhere has to be explained. And, how they inter-related with one another to deliver an actually” effecting” paving will require explanation too

Now, it is also interesting how both the Chalmers Experiment and Yves Couder’s remarkable experiment managed to get their produced phenomena by the inclusion of an imposed vibration. In Couder’s case it was of a liquid silicone substrate in a tray, upon which all the phenomena occurred. While a Chalmers it was their vibrating mirror”.

Clearly, in both cases, it was these vibrations that imported the necessary kind and amount of energy to bring about the given phenomena.

While, in this theorist’s Theory of the Double Slit, the only possible source for what was happening in these experiments (and in subsequent successful efforts to explain the energy embodied in electrostatic fields), always ended up with it coming from the substrate and NOT from the supposedly causing Charge.

If these inferences can be taken together, we can see Empty Space as not only non-empty, but also a system of receptacles for energy – a system, maybe undetectable, but capable of remarkable things – Action-at-a-Distance, Energetic Fields and even the Propagation of electrostatic energy across the Universe.

The Trouble with Reflections?

Can We Be Sure That We Are Interpreting Evidence Correctly?

This short paper considers some of the concerns that have arisen with the idea of Totally Internal Reflection of electromagnetic radiation occurring at the boundaries of the Universe. And the validity of conclusions from this supposition that led to a vastly extended and partially virtual view of that system.

The major problem with the suggestion that Totally Internal Reflection takes place at the boundaries of our Universe is that they must certainly give the movements of real sources an opposite direction when seen via reflection.

Now, the conclusion unavoidable from this suggestion is that such a dramatic reverse in that component of direction perpendicular to the area of the boundary where reflection occurred, and this would be discerned, and it would be demolish the principle of all distant sources moving away.

And, of course, conversely, if such “approaching” sources were not in evidence, it would demolish this possibility outright.

Now, certainly this latter seems to be the case, for no such approaching distant sources have been observed. So, such evidence seems to have totally scuppered the suggestion of Totally Internal Reflections, and the whole idea should be dropped immediately.

But, there are other possibilities.

Are we being too simple in our methods of judging these distant moving entities? Clearly, we can only really use ourselves as a certain point of reference. They all seem to be moving away from us, and we are certainly NOT a reflection.

This clearly implies either an expanding Universe, or the expansion of Space itself. A reflecting final boundary of the Universe seems to be untenable.

Also recent mathematical research into multiple reflections from both the leading and trailing edges of an expanding shell universe make the consequences even more incompatible with observations. For these investigations seem to indicate that such reflections will tend to bring these multiple reflections into roughly radial directions with respect to the centre of that Universe. And this is the case, whether these are outwards or those apparently inwards due to the final reflection. And, again, the evidence from observations does not support this either.

Yet, before abandoning this idea altogether, perhaps we should see if, once again, we are stretching a formalism too far, and by this, extrapolating it to absurdity once more.

For, as with everything else, you cannot use a particular simplification forever, as it will certainly run out of applicability and fail in the limit.

And in Reality Phases naturally occur.

Let us consider the differences between a very, very early Universe, and an old one like ours is now!

The early Universe will be (in comparison) very small, and hence, if reflections do take place, they will be frequent – and even traversing right around the Universe in a series of cycles that will then be possible. The results will be as we have assumed in this suggestion. But in an old Universe, the sizes will have become much too big, indeed actually so colossal, that it has become impossible to discern a current boundary that is real. Indeed, this research has proved that because of the finite velocity of light. An observer will never see such a boundary-as-is, because every seen part of it will be from different times in the past, and hence from their positions then.

This will make a spherical boundary appear egg-shaped. [The calculations for this have been published. See SHAPE Journal’s Special Issue - Can We See The Edge?]

Indeed, to make our calculations and placing ourselves as the observer in the best place for making the necessary calculations proved impossible. We had to position ourselves at some point that made the calculations easiest.

Also, our usual means of measuring speeds of sources in Cosmology is almost never direct for very distant objects. It usually depends upon the famed Doppler Effect, which implies that a Red Shift in received light means that its source must be moving away, and the amount of that shift gives a measure of how fast that is happening.

And Hubble’s extraction of a relation between distance and speed, then allowed Red Shift to also be used to give distance too.

Anyway, let us not get deflected from the main problem.

The evidence does NOT support Totally Internal Reflection at a boundary, because we don’t detect any light coming towards us from a seemingly approaching source.

But, if we are using colour (Red Shift) to determine direction and speed of a source, we will certainly fail with reflected light.

For the observed Red Shift will still be the same, won’t it? Seeing something red in a mirror will still be red won’t it, and it will have identical shift characteristics. So, depending upon the shift to give distance will certainly fail? And maybe we have a problem with the assumption of Red Shift itself? For doesn’t it assume that a wavelength is stretched by the receding source? Leaving behind on a stationary Space a wider trace that would have been laid by a stationary source?

But, have we actually got “waves” in Empty Space, or only quanta-carrying receptacles of such energy?

How then do they get stretched? Surely, such “contained” quanta of energy, probably held in internal orbiting sub-particles, will be inviolate? Whatever wavelength was stored as such a quantum, would be totally unaffected by the speed of the original source, and would be isolated from an expanding Space too.
 

The usual supposition is that the trace is spread out over time, and hence covering more space and hence having a longer wavelength a red shift.

How could this work when the quantum is being carried inside a receptacle as an internal orbit?

WOW!

Clearly, though the obvious conclusion is that the basic assumption of a reflecting boundary is mistaken, there are other questions that are not yet clarified.

As mentioned earlier, the main tenets of the idea of reflected light at the Universe boundary does only seem to fit in a very young Universe. For one thing, multiple reflections of light from a single source and then be received by a single observer, can only take place if there is sufficient time for them all to actually reach that observer.

Two cases stand out!

ONE: More recent production of light a long way from any boundary might not have time to get there and back to a given observer. No reflections would then be seen. And,

TWO: A source near to the boundary would certainly have not such an enormous gap between the direct light and its reflection at the boundary reaching the same observer.

NOTE: Remember, we are talking about continually emitting sources; so different paths could still have the light from both arriving together at the observer. They will just have been emitted at different times in the past.

Yet a recent case of the latter might be so far away from the observer that neither the direct nor the reflected light would yet have reached him.

The point about these considerations is that there will be definite zones, which will be seen differently by an observer. So, somehow, these will have to be thought-through, and described, so that we don’t use the situation in one zone for that in another, OR, even more misleading, use a single interpretation for all of the different situations.

Finally, a reflection is NOT a different source, but merely a different path for the light from a given source to take.

Any emanations from the actual source will have the same properties in any reflection: they cannot be changed. But the light traversing a different path, and the nature of that journey will not necessarily be the same.

The most important difference will be in the reflection itself. We don’t know the nature of the reflecting boundary (if such exists). It maybe far from smooth and even. So the effect of that on the light, plus the difference in time for alternative paths, will deliver the same source but from different times in the past. Each view will be from a different time in the source’s history.

In conclusion, the evidence seems to be against there being Totally Internal Reflection at the boundaries of our Universe, but there are still good reasons for carrying that assumption forward to investigate the above identified, and still to be established, possibilities. Science has always been replete with “obvious assumptions” that have both misled, and ultimately, have been proved to be mistaken.

The original theory of this model of the universe is best described in this video...

Issue 24 of SHAPE

Issue 24 sees the introduction of a new magazine-style layout to the journal and a complete reappraisal of how we see the Space-Time continuum - is it a 'continuum' at all, or is this another formal assumption?

Editorial: This issue of SHAPE is unusual in that it gathers together a series of recent papers precipitated by a long and concerted attack upon the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. It started with the ubiquitous Double Slit Experiments, but quickly forced a more general reassessment which could not but include Cosmology and Einstein’s formal contributions upon the assumed framework of everything - Space & Time.

It is not the coherent and comprehensive work that was originally planned for a Special Issue on the subject - this will follow in the relatively near future - but it does lay down a few precursors of an entirely new approach, which arose out of other Sciences - particularly Biology and primarily Darwin and the following Evolutionists. 

But this collection does indeed tackle the philosophic ground of giants such as Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg and shows in a fragmentary way where their transformation of Physics has unfortunately led.

Read the issue here

New Special Issue on Nothing

A whole series of magazine articles by prestigious authors and Special Issues by office hacks, as well as many different TV spectaculars and series have found it necessary to expand upon their increasingly important concept of... well... nothing.

In seeking an Origin for the Universe (without a God of course), they have settled upon "Nothing" as their necessary source. But, as you might have expected, it is a very special kind of Nothing!

First of all it is man-made. Or, to clarify, we both call it "Nothing" and have defined what we think Nothing actually is.

And, secondly, as you might have guessed, there isn't a single, unambiguous definiton. Indeed, the indubitable origin of the concept of Nothing is definitely mathematical, and associated with the mathematicians new concept of "zero" (as a number without any magnitude). It is a formal "nothing", like zero, but made up of +1 and -1, or equal amounts of positive and negative charges, or even completely balanced forces which give the appearance of zero activity, and, of course, many others of similar ilk.

Indeed my favourite has to be the Physical Singularity, where something supposedly vanishes by successive contractions, until it shrinks into the tiniest dot, and then down to absolutely Nothing. And, lo and behold, in reverse... we can have the whole of the present universe emanating from an identical dimensionless dot. Magic, isn't it?

This is not an unimportant philosophical speculation: it is indeed the current consensus position of the vast majority of today's physicists and cosmologists. And it is a direct consequence of two important principles, which were both progressive and extremely useful for many centuries. These were the Formalism of Mathematics and the Plurality of analyses of things into seperable parts.

Now, though gigantic pragmatic and technological strides were made using these principles, which it has to be admitted, transformed our world - they finally, and inevitably, began to lead us astray. When our tools no longer work, we should cast them aside and replace them with something better. For such has always been the way of Science!

It is never as easy as it sounds. Those who benefitted greatly from their past use of such priniciples, and indeed, made them the cornerstones of all their contributions and theories, would always and ever defend them to the last as their own prestige was surely based upon them. And, in their defence of these now reactionary principles, these supporters will favour the most remarkable retreats, rather than admit that they were wrong.

In 1927 a totally reactionary conception of Physics won the day against "old fashioned" Einstein and his supporters at the Solvay Conference, with what became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - a pragmatist/idealist retreat of major proportions, that cast out "fuzzy" reality as the final arbiter, and replaced it with "driving essences", which were affirmed to be
equations.

The story of this debacle and how it must be defeated, has to be addressed, and Shape Journal is finally ready to begin this vital task. This Special Issue, under the title of "Nothing" is to start the process, to address this current preoccupation, for it has certainly redirected science into an impassable idealistic mire.

Read it here