A Unified Field Theory

A Unified Field Theory

A summary of the Unified Field Theory

INDEX

 

“Dark Energy” as a Power Source: A Thought Experiment

 

A Unified Field Theory is that theory which proposes that there is only one form of energy field in the universe, the electromagnetic field, and that all other fields are manifestations of this single field being expressed in different forms. Therefore in the universe as it must be described by any Unified Field Theory the ‘warped space’ surrounding a ‘mass’ (the gravitational field) must also be an electromagnetic field, and this would mean that what we think of as ‘three dimensional empty space’ is actually an energy field.

There exists in nature a hydrological cycle, represented in over-simplified form in the above diagram. The tree withdraws moisture from the earth, and then through evapotranspiration the tree exhausts moisture into the atmosphere (this is required to maintain the siphoning effect and withdraw more water from the earth). This atmospheric moisture then feeds clouds, and the clouds then produce rain which waters the earth, which then once again waters the tree.

An energy cycle also exists in nature. The turbine of the hydroelectric dam transforms one form of energy (the energy of the motion of flowing water) into electricity. There also exist circuits which transform heat energy into electricity or electricity into heat. In all its various forms, energy can be translated from one form to another. Energy is never created and energy is never destroyed. It can only be transformed and transferred.

If we make the assumption, consistent with the Unified Field Theory, that the ‘warped space’ of the ‘three dimensional universe’ is just one more manifestation of this energy field, then it follows from this that it must be possible to translate energy in the form of this ‘three dimensional space’ into usable electrical energy. We will call this energy encapsulated in this form of ‘three dimensional space’ the ‘dark energy of the universe’.

It is a characteristic of an energy field to seek ‘the lowest possible energy configuration’. The result is a consistent and even energy field, which then becomes a stable state. When a discontinuity is present in the field the result is the generation of a force, and the purpose of such forces in nature is to ‘reduce the potential energy’ and recreate this stable state. In the diagram above we represent a very simple circuit. One element (red) we will consider a positive element with a surplus of energy, while the dark black element we will consider ‘negative’ in that it has a deficit of energy (relative to the red positive element). Therefore a relative charged state exists between these two elements when they are connected by a copper wire (represented by the yellow line) and this then results in the creation of a force (represented by the blue line) which is the voltage, which is the potential difference between the two elements. Current then flows from the positive element to the negative element in response to the force, until finally both the energy is found to be evenly distributed between both elements. At this point the voltage no longer exists. The force disappears because in this closed system this state represents the lower possible energy configuration and there no longer exists any potential difference.

With this idea in mind, it would seem logical to assume that if we wish to translate the ‘dark energy’ of three dimensional space into electrical current, one of the first steps must be to create a discontinuity in space. This is represented in the diagram above by the dark red area, which is the lowest possible evenly distributed energy state of a region of three dimensional space in the midst of which we have created a lower energy discontinuity, which then results in the creation of a force, a type of voltage potential in space, represented by the blue line.

It is that this point that we consider the humble bar magnet as being one element known to generate a force as the consequence of creating a discontinuity in the field of three dimensional space. Here we see the two similar poles of a bar magnet coming together, with the result being a force generated within three dimensional space which pushes the poles of the bar magnet apart. Anyone who has ever tried would know that this force is so powerful that it is next to impossible to push together the two similar poles of a bar magnet. Whenever a force exists in nature this means that a discontinuity in the field exists and that there is potential energy that must be dealt with by this force if the energy field is to return to the state of lower potential energy.

There exist electrical components that translate mechanical force into electrical energy (piezoelectric and ferroelectric circuit components are some examples). Now let us suppose that you ate a bowl of oatmeal for breakfast, to fuel up, and then, using all your strength, you squeezed together the two similar poles of two bar magnets, which generated mechanical stress in a piezoelectric circuit, which then generated electricity, which then illuminated a bulb. You have successfully transformed the energy found in oatmeal (recall Einstein’s equation, E=MC2) into electromagnetic radiation in the form of light.

Let’s assume that you wanted to repeat the experiment, only this rather than exhaust yourself, you decided to use heavy weights and the force of gravity to pull the two magnetic poles together so as to generate the mechanical force required to stress the piezoelectric circuit so as to generate the electricity required to light the bulb. In this case, instead of converting oatmeal into light you have converted gravitational force into light energy.

What we have demonstrated here is that ‘gravitational energy’ is equivalent to the energy encapsulated in one bowl of oatmeal. We have also demonstrated that ‘gravitational energy’ is equivalent to ‘electrical energy’ and is also equivalent to the energy in the form of ‘electromagnetic radiation’. So therefore it logically follows that ‘gravitational energy’ is part of the universal energy cycle, and if we can convert gravitational energy into these other forms then it must also be true that these other forms can also be converted into ‘gravitational energy’, for the energy cycle is a cycle through which energy transforms into all of these various states. The gravitational field manifests itself visibly as a ‘warped space field’ and so therefore we entertain the strange idea that it is possible to translate one bowl of oatmeal into ‘warped three dimensional space’.

Now let us consider the moon-earth system. The moon tugs on the world’s oceans by means of the force of the moon’s gravitation. The oceans respond to the pocket of warped space surrounding by the moon by ‘falling’ into this space which causes the high tides twice a day. This results in a transfer of energy between the earth moon system which manifests itself in a change in the momentum of the moon, such that the moon is spiraling away from the earth at a steady rate of 3 centimeters per year.

Consider a small sub-atomic particle being accelerated to near light speeds by the Large Hadron Collider. One of the consequences of the equation ‘E=MC2′ (the equivalence of energy and ‘matter’) is that an effective increase in the energy results in an effective increase in mass, and so therefore the small sub-atomic particle, accelerated to this velocity, acquires the mass/energy equivalent of a Greyhound bus, before being directed into a head on collision with another particle with an equivalent velocity, resulting in the equivalent of a head-on collision between two Greyhound buses traveling at near light speeds. Now it makes sense that a mass accelerated to a high velocity must also become a powerful gravitational source (due to this effective increase in mass) and so therefore high velocity objects must be surrounded by a pocket of extremely warped space (for we know that the gravitational field manifests itself in this form of warped three dimensional space). The ‘momentum’ of an object must therefore be stored in the form of the warped space around the object, and we would assume that the transfer of momentum to an object is also the transfer of ‘three dimensional space’. The ‘dark energy of the universe’ would therefore be the momentum of the universe, and when we convert this ‘gravitational energy’ to any other form of energy it must be true that we are translating this ‘dark energy’ which is another way of saying that we are translating three dimensional space into another form of energy.

The purpose of this thought experiment is to justify the assumptions of the Unified Field Theory. As for using this ‘dark energy’ as a new power source, this would involve reducing the momentum of the earth in space, resulting in a shift of the earth’s orbit, and possibly a new form of global warming would be the result. However, my back of the envelope calculations suggest that this would take millions of years to manifest itself. Let us assume that the orbit of the earth shifted by 3 centimeters per year, much like the moon. This would result in the earth moving about one third of a kilometer in one thousand years, and when we consider that the earth is 99 million miles away from the sun, this results in a minuscule change in the earth’s orbital radius. One of the consequences of the Unified Field Theory could be the development of cheap and abundant power sources with a minimal environmental  impact. Furthermore, it is possible to imagine a transfer of momentum to momentum and since momentum is conserved quantity, the momentum borrowed from the earth could then be transferred back to the earth, with only small net loss (drag caused by air resistance…. if you made toast in the morning, some of the energy would radiate out into space in the form of infrared radiation). We might also consider robbing the moon of about 3 centimeters of momentum per year, thus keeping the moon  from spiraling out of orbit, while at the same time preventing that momentum robber from robbing the earth of anymore momentum (thus no doubt causing our days to become a little tiny bit longer every single year, and we do want to keep the earth rotating, so that one side does not bake and boil while the other cold size freezes).

A few ideas to think about….

Commentary

The following discussion is intended to clarify a few points concerning a previous discussion on the topic of harnessing the so-called ‘dark energy’ of the universe as a new form of energy. The discussion  included a schematic block diagram of a device employed to accomplish this task, and for this reason it is now inevitable that this technology will be deployed. It is only a matter of time, some research and the development of a practical application.

The purpose of this ‘thought experiment’ was to demonstrate that the Unified Field Theory is correct. Another way to accomplish the same thing would involve releasing a balloon filled with hydrogen gas on the moon, and since the moon has no atmosphere it becomes obvious that hydrogen or helium filled balloons do not rise because ‘they are lighter than air’. The real question to ask is ‘why is hydrogen lighter than air?’ Why does the gravitational field attempt to sort atoms and molecules based upon their density? The interpretation of gravitation as some kind of ‘matter based field’, and thus impossible to unify, would all go up in smoke in the one minute it took some hydrogen or helium balloon to rise up from the surface of the moon. Unfortunately we have no moon base right now so we must come up with ideas for experiments that can be conducted down here on earth working with what we have where we are right now. Now we can demonstrate gravitational repulsion here on earth, thus verifying that gravitation is not some matter based field where there is only ‘attraction’ and no repulsion. We could release a balloon filled with helium or hydrogen down here on earth and then watch it drive up the curved slope of that space-time but for that experiment would not work, because people would keep insisting that there is no gravitational repulsion and the hydrogen is ‘lighter than air’ (an explanation which means nothing, coming in the form of a supposed answer than consists only of rephrasing the original question).

Unfortunately we have no moon base and thus cannot completely destroy the disunified theory of ‘natter based gravity’ in under one minute at this time, and therefore, being stuck on earth, we have to work with what we’ve got and make the best of things down here.

One of the assumptions of the Unified Field Theory, the most fundamental assumption, is that there is a unified field theory. Therefore it follows from this that ‘space’ must also be a unified field, and that therefore three dimensional space is an energy field. The universe did not ‘appear in space’ at the moment of the big bang. The universe does not exist in space right now, as though somehow three dimensional space was an independent thing that universes exist within. Three dimensional space is a property of the universe itself and apart from the universe there is no space. We need to accept that this is true to make any sense at all out of some meaningless abstraction such as ‘momentum’ or the motion of objects through this space. When an object gains energy (gains momentum) it then begins to move through three dimensional space. You can shut down a rocket engine and then coast all the way to Jupiter because you have gained energy in the form of this ‘conserved momentum’. This is an incomprehensible idea if we assume that three dimensional space was some kind of empty vacuum that just happens to have a three dimensional property, which is convenient, because it then supplied the required room for a universe to expand into after the big bang.

Now according to some feedback I have received, there are those who listen to me and conclude that they are listening to the wild insane quacking of some mad duck. Let us keep in mind here that we are  discussing the strange metamorphic chameleon known as energy, which will manifest at one time in the form of a bowl of oatmeal, at another time as an electrical current, yet again as mechanical force, and then go flying through space as an electromagnetic wave. Why would it be the case that if we were to propose that energy would first appear as a bowl of pottage and then morph into a patch of warped three dimensional space, for some reason such a transformation must be considered the production of some gadfly crank or the quacking of some crazed duck? When energy goes deep under cover and appears on stage dressed up to play the role of a three dimensional warped space field, we will then call this the ‘dark energy of the universe’ for apparently that one metamorphosis was just one to many and thus energy was able to hide in plain sight and become .the hidden mysterious dark energy of the universe.. For while human beings were able to learn to live with the idea that energy could morph into a tossed salad it proved impossible to accept the idea that it would also change itself into a warped three dimensional ‘dark energy’ space field. It was just to much to accept. It just couldn’t be done.

Any new technology requires careful study and the production of an environmental impact statement. For this reason I did explain to people that one possible consequence of employing this new technology will be the shifting of the earth’s orbit around the sun. Now we are talking about an enormous energy system here, and so we are not talking about shifting the earth’s orbit a large amount any time soon, and should probably start thinking in terms of millions of years, or at the very least thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. This is a vast improvement over our current technology where we have to consider the environmental impact in terms of decades, which then creates an immediate emergency.

This emergency is the product of a primitive state of technological development. This primitive technology then creates a corresponding primitive attitude towards energy usage (the idea being that you have something called ‘energy consumption’, energy being something that gets ‘consumed’ by ‘energy consumers’ at which time energy gets all used up and is gone and thus gets tossed like an empty wrapper). Actually the true energy cycle of the universe is one of constant recycling. For example, you could borrow some momentum from the earth, and then fly from New York to Los Angeles. Let’s assume that you generate a force field around your craft to impart momentum to air particles to get them to move out of the way, so you don’t generate all that dreadfully inefficient drag that causes loss of momentum (and a consequent waste of energy). When you arrived at L.A. you could then give the energy you used to some Tom, Dick or Harry so that they could use the same energy that you used to fly to L.A. to fly back to New York, at which time they could give that same energy to someone else to use to fly all the way to China and then onto Los Angeles, with the agreement being that when they landed in L.A. they would then give that energy back to you, so that you could use the exact same energy to fly to New York. The point to be made here is that while this technology does have the potential to alter the orbit of the earth around the sun, it does not have to be that way, if we assume that people understand how to move energy efficiently through the energy cycle. Energy is never created, energy is never destroyed, and it certainly is never ‘used up and all gone.’

Now once again I will run into that problem of sounding to some people like a insane quacking duck. Let’s clarify this point. You are out in space, with no atmosphere. You fire up your very primitive rocket engine to make some fire so you can get momentum, since you still do not have the technology or the scientific clarity to be able to input momentum directly into your system. For this reason we will tolerate  your wasteful use of energy as you emit worthless fires and heat and light out into space while you build up your momentum. Now once you are up to speed, you shut down your engine, and you coast through space until you reach your destination. This is how NASA operates. You do not hold your foot on a gas pedal all the way to Jupiter. You coast all the way to Jupiter with your engines off. You have conserved momentum. You have stored energy which is conserved in your ‘momentum field’. You have motion through space. Now, let us imagine that you are on earth, and you gain momentum so as to fly from New York to Los Angeles. You have a special force field to get rid of that nasty head on collision problem with those gazillion air molecules. You don’t need to keep your engines fired up just because you are on earth and are losing momentum to those troublesome air molecules. You coast all the way from New York to Los Angeles, and this way of employing energy in the form of ‘conserved momentum’ is in no way different than coasting to Jupiter using the same method, and thinking about energy in the same way. You then either put that momentum energy back into the Earth’s momentum field, or you could give it to some Tom, Dick, or Harry so they can use it.

None of this is the quacking of some mad duck, and the fact that people think of ‘consuming energy’ is just the product of a mind conditioned by the experience of living with such primitive and backwards technology. Take the automobile, a truly primitive device, which is equivalent to that prehistoric vehicle driven by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, where the two of them would be seen pulling that vehicle up off the ground just like they were pulling up their pants and would then gallop along on their bare feet to build up some momentum.

If we assume that we employ an advanced technology and are moving energy through the energy cycle, then the environmental impact of this technology becomes effectively zero. There would be some small losses. Let us assume that you cooked dinner. You do not want to efficiently capture and recycle the heat energy of supper, because no one wants to eat a cold supper, nor is there any reason to be such a fanatical parsimonious Scrooge when the universe is an enormously huge huge battery. Therefore it is an acceptable loss to allow some of that heat energy from dinner to escape out into space in the form of infrared radiation. It would also be possible to correct for any small losses by capturing some solar energy and putting that into the earth’s momentum field to top it off. The moon is also an orbiting sponge, capturing and storing in the form of ‘moon momentum’ all the accumulated tidal energy of all the world’s oceans and bodies of water, as that fleeing bandit uses that energy to fuel its getaway as it escapes from the earth system. Topping off the earth’s momentum by recovering some of that stolen moon momentum is also possible, as is using the moon as a storage battery. This is just a roundabout way of harnessing all the world’s tidal energy while not disturbing the environment of any marine life forms. We could also shut down every hydroelectric dam on earth and thus avoid disturbing the salmon..

Now why would it be the case that transforming gravitational field energy (the ‘dark energy of the universe’) into electrical energy or light or heat and so on, would result in a potential shift of the earth’s orbit? (Here we assume that the energy cycle is not exploited and energy is consumed and then tossed out like an empty wrapper like it is now).

You are familiar with Einstein’s famous equation, E=MC2. What this tells us is that you can determine the amount of this energy that can be transformed into matter, such as a tossed salad, by using the mass of the salad (M) and multiplying this by the speed of light squared to get the correct answer. You can see matter (unstable uranium and its even more unstable derivatives) being changed into energy in a nuclear reactor or when a nuclear bomb explodes. You can see that matter can also capture energy in a solar cell, or if you charge up a glow in the dark toy out in the sunlight and then retreat into a closet to watch the greenish colored light energy escape from that matter slowly over a period of time. You turn matter (gasoline) into momentum and the energy of motion when you use the primitive technology of the internal combustion engine, and eventually your gas tank winds up empty as a result of your motion.

When you add momentum energy to any moving object, you are increasing the total energy of that system. The result is an effective increase in the ‘relative mass’ of that object. When a small sub- atomic particle is accelerated in the Large Hadron Collider (it is given more and more momentum field energy) it finally achieves the mass energy equivalent of a Greyhound bus. Because it stated out as a tiny sub-atomic particle ‘at rest’, its energy could be described by the equation ‘MC2′ but once it achieves the relative mass of a Greyhound bus we can ignore MC2, and instead we can now say that E=P, which is to say that the energy of that particle is its momentum and its mass (M) has become so tiny in comparison that it can be ignored.

So we can see that an object experiences an increase in ‘relative mass’ when it experiences an increase in velocity which is caused by an increase in energy in the form of momentum. That this is an increase in ‘relative mass’ is made evident by the fact that as the velocity increases, and thus this effective mass increases, the result is an increase in inertia (the object becomes ‘heavier’ and thus ‘harder and harder to push’) as its velocity increases. For this reason each new design of a particle accelerator must become much more powerful just to push a subatomic particle a tiny bit closer to the speed of light, because the particle already has the relative mass (and thus the inertia) equivalent to that of a Greyhound bus, and it therefore is much harder to push a Greyhound bus than it was in the beginning when the particle was ‘at rest’ and possessed only the tiny ‘rest mass’ of a very very tiny subatomic particle.

An increase in momentum is therefore equivalent to a relative increase in mass. Whenever energy is transferred through the energy cycle by means of the mechanism of this warped space field, the result is always expressed in the form of a change of momentum (the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 3 centimeters per year, the result of a transfer of tidal energy to momentum through the mechanism of the moons warped space field). Now you don’t get something from nothing. If ‘dark energy’ is transferred from the earth’s gravitational field and then used to fly to New York or to make toast in the morning, this results in a net change in the total energy of the gravitational field. The gravitational field manifests itself in the universe in the form of a ‘warped three dimensional space field’ and so therefore if you wish you can imagine cutting out a very tiny three dimensional cube of space out of this field and then transforming it into electrical energy as you make toast in the morning.   You could then imagine the entire warped space field of the earth shrinking back by a tiny amount to compensate for the fact that you removed that one tiny cube of space.

We know that when the energy state of a system changes the result is a change in relative mass, and we also know that relative mass is related to velocity and the motion of objects through the three dimensional space field. Therefore when gravitational energy is removed from the earth’s warped space field, the result is a loss of momentum and a change in velocity, which then results in a shift in the earth’s orbit around the sun. This is just nature’s way of expressing a change in the state of the gravitational energy field as a change in relative mass. You cause objects to move with greater velocity by increasing the relative mass and you can cause objects to ‘lose momentum’ by causing the object to lose energy thus reducing the effective relative mass. Therefore we can see that a direct relationship exists between gravitational field energy and momentum, in that any change in the state of the gravitational field will result in a change in relative mass and therefore a change in velocity. From this observation we draw the conclusion that ‘the dark energy of the universe’ is the momentum of the universe and that it is the warped space field around an object (composed of this so called ‘dark energy’) which is the true carrier of all momentum in the universe.

Momentum and gravitation are equivalent for this reason, and it is for this reason that the potential environmental impact of this new technology would be to alter the orbit of the earth around the sun (although, as I mentioned above, this need not be the case, if energy is recycled through the universal energy cycle, in which case there should be no environmental impact at all).

The quantum physicists do not really know what they are doing and yet they accomplish things. They tweak equations to match experimental results, and then use those tweaked math equations to make predictions and generate new experiments, followed by more tweaking. If you ask a quantum physicist a question such as ‘but what is an electron…really…what is it’, you will find that they don’t know the answer. However that doesn’t stop them, and therefore I do not see any reason why it should be the case that just because we do not have a full one hundred percent perfect and complete Unified Field Theory that should stop us from proceeding forward. We can tweak as we go along.

One of the consequences of not gaining some momentum here and pushing forward the agenda of the Unified Field Theory is that people will find themselves up to their nostrils in nuclear waste, since, out of all the available options, that really dirty and primitive burning technology (based upon burning things up to ‘make energy’) appears to be moving up to the top of the list as the only truly viable primitive technological replacement for the primitive technology of burning up oil.

Einstein

Based upon some feedback I have gotten I get the impression that some people think that I am contradicting Einstein and therefore it is back to the future with Isaac Newton for us all. I thought I might try to point out some similarities and some differences that exist between the Unified Field Theory and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

According to the ‘matter based interpretation’ of the gravitational field, a gravity field is a property of matter. Just as a space ship coasts through space on its way to Jupiter, so a mass of matter falls down in the gravitational field because it is just coasting along, and winds up following the curved path of ‘spacetime’, which always leads in a downwards direction, which then explains why gravitation is not a  unified field, nor could it ever be one, because there is no such thing as ‘gravitational repulsion’, only attraction, this being a matter based field. ‘Spacetime’ is left as a vague and undefined term, that certain something that is being warped and curved. Isaac Newton’s energy field is not required now that we understand that objects are just coasting through space and then following the curved lines of spacetime. There remains one problem with this matter based interpretation in that it does leave us asking the question, ‘why do objects coast through space’?

According to the Unified Field Theory, three dimensional space is just one more of the manifestations of that metamorphic chameleon known as energy (we will call the energy composing the field of three dimensional space ‘the dark energy of the universe’ for the time being). We know the dark energy is just normal energy in one more form because it is possible to move other forms of energy, such as the mechanical energy of ocean tidal movements through the energy cycle of the universe by means of this warped space field, and it will prove to be possible to change gravitational field energy (‘dark energy’) into toast and a cup of coffee in the morning or send it firing out some light bulb, or use it to fly to L.A. International.

The gravitational field, according to the Unified Field Theory, is the momentum field of the universe. It also does double duty as the gravitational field, since the gravity field is just a motion field. You experience zero G-Forces when you are falling (you can simulate a zero G environment for short times by diving in jet, and thus conduct real quick zero G experiments). The reason why you do not experience any force is that you are doing what you should be doing. You are moving, which is acceptable. When you are sitting on a chair you feel yourself being pulled down into the seat cushions, much in the same way as you would be sucked back into the seat cushion of an accelerating moving automobile. You experience this G Force because you have potential energy, which is the energy of motion and you are not moving like you are supposed to be moving and therefore a force is generated to compel you to move towards the lowest possible energy state. This state exists below the visible surface of the earth, and you cannot go there because there is to much debris blocking the way, and so therefore you experience a perpetual force, the force of gravity.

It is characteristic of energy to create a smooth, even field and then go into a state of rest without change. No force is generated because there is no potential energy to exchange. The lowest possible state has been achieved. No force field is required. The gravitational field is one more form of the electromagnetic field and in this case it is not possible to create a completely smooth even field because of the presence of atoms in the universe, each one of them like a little bar magnet and each one of them being like a titanium walnut with an energy core and a shell that is impossible to crack..

The solution is to attempt a sorting operation upon atoms and distribute the atoms to different places in the field based upon density. Hydrogen falls up (experiences gravitational repulsion relative to a location on the surface of the earth) because the density of hydrogen requires that it be sorted by being moved to a location so high in the field that eventually hydrogen interacts with the solar wind and is blown off into space). Invoking Archimedes and making the claim that hydrogen rises because ‘it was lighter than air’ means nothing, for hydrogen is ‘lighter than air’ because the gravitational field is a  density sorting operation, and it is for this reason that no such sorting or sedimentation occurs on the International Space Station.

One similarity between Einstein and the Unified Field Theory is that neither requires an exchange of energy to explain gravitational acceleration (it would appear that an object ‘gains momentum’ when it falls in the field, because it moves faster and faster as it falls). Momentum is a density function, and the change in the dilation of the field (it becomes denser) results in a relative increase in momentum. We also know that when an object ‘gains momentum’ and you were in the object, rather than experiencing zero G forces you would experience G forces. Objects falling in gravitational fields experience zero G because they are still ‘coasting through space’ by means of conserved momentum and they will not experience G Forces until such a time as they impact the visible surface of the gravitating body.

We can see that momentum is relative (to field density) when we consider the anomalous constant deceleration of the two Pioneer spacecraft as they rise upwards through the gravitational field of the sun. That there are two of them is good because it means that the experiment was repeated twice and produced identical results both times. It is far fetched to suggest that both craft lost exactly the same amount of momentum at the same time thus producing these interesting experimental results without ruining any twentieth century science while doing so. They were polite and well behaved spacecraft, you see.

The Unified Field Theory introduces the idea of ‘the relative speed of light’ (as well as the relative wavelength and frequency of light). Think of it this way. In a gravitational field clocks run slower. The stronger the field, the slower the clock. This is equivalent to a high velocity object moving through three dimensional space, where the clock also runs slower (and you would also fall with greater velocity in a higher potential gravitational field). Imagine an optical clock where each ‘tick’ of the clock is dependant upon the speed of light as it crosses a small space and then hits some kind of detector. The clock will tick slower in the gravitational well because no process can occur faster than the mediating process. We therefore think of the ticking of the clock as light velocity dependant, because no process can occur faster than the mediating process, and when the mediating process slows down every other process must also slow down. (The ‘photon’ is the ‘mediating particle’ of electromagnetism, and since this is the Unified Field Theory, it follows then that in one way or another, the photon is the mediator of all processes and for this reason ‘the clock runs slower’ or the ‘the clock runs faster’ ). This then leads us to draw the conclusion that both the wavelength and frequency must also be relative, for the law of the conservation of energy requires that if light red shifts (becomes of lower energy) therefore it must ‘conserve energy’ by expressing this energy in the form of increased velocity (and vice versa).

We can understand that this must be true when we consider that the two Pioneer spacecraft are decelerating at a constant equivalent to Hubble’s constant (related to calculating the redshift). Let us assume that this is a measure of the dilation of the spatial field and the consequent dilation of electromagnetic radiation as it conforms to this dilated spatial field. At the same time we consider momentum to be a density function and as the momentum field also dilates, deceleration results. The total potential velocity of the two spacecraft lies somewhere just below the speed of light and so therefore it must be true that as the spacecraft are decelerating (while at the same time conserving the energy expressed in the form of momentum) it must be true that at the same time the total potential velocity of the two spacecraft is increasing (the craft would require more momentum in order to maintain the same speed they had before).

This then suggests that the spatial field is dilated as its energy density decreases (the Inverse Square law applies here) and that the frequency and wavelength and speed of light are all relative and change in harmony. Let’s assume that a process produced ‘green’. Let’s assume that the clock is now running faster out in some patch of distant space. This green light becomes red-shifted because of the dilation of the field. The clock however is running much faster and so an observer concludes that the process produced green light and does not notice the relative redshift (the effect of the clock is to produce a time induced relative blue shift which in effect cancels out the spatial induced relative red shift. This is required so that all relative frames perceive similar results). The same thing occurs in a strong gravitational field where the result is blue shifted and the clock is running slower resulting in a relative time induced red shift.

This then implies that a process must produce results which are relative to the field in which the process occurs. In a highly energetic field the process produces results which we could call ‘blue shifted’. Because the clock is slow, an observer perceives these results as being ‘red shifted’, and therefore declares that the wavelength and frequency are not relative, but rather are fixed constants in every frame. This blue shifting was therefore required if all processes are to produce the same results in all frames. Consider two small comet fragments with equality of conserved momentum and mass, one of which strikes Jupiter, the result being a titanic explosion and a scar the size of the earth,  and the other which hits the surface of the moon, leaving a small crater and kicking up a small cloud of dust. The only variable in both cases was the field in which the process occurred.

How is relative mass related to the absolute mass and the gravitational force field? We can see that the warped space field pulls double duty, being both a momentum field and a battery while at the same time playing some kind of role in gravitation. Does an increase in momentum, and thus an increase in relative mass which results in an increase in dark energy density in the field result in an increase in gravitational attraction? Or could it be that this increase in energy is already expressed in the universe in the form of increased velocity and so therefore the gravitational force field remains constant, being dependant only on what we could call the absolute mass? This is possible. Does an increase in the relative energy of the warped space field result in a physical change in the size of this force field or does it just result in an increase in energetic density in a space field of fixed size (the size of this space field therefore being determined by the absolute mass). This is probably true, for we can see that it must be true that the behavior of light is relative which implies an increased density in the field energy which therefore implies a physical warped space field of a fixed size dependant only upon the absolute mass.

We might then assume that a change in the density of this dark energy (as it is commonly called) would then manifest itself in the universe as a change in the rate of relative acceleration in a gravitational field. Objects would fall faster if earth was moving at close to light speed. In this way an object with an enormous relative mass would exhibit behavior very similar to that of a black hole, without actually being a black hole, not having the absolute mass required to become a black hole. What this would mean is that if you lived on earth and earth was rocketing through space at near light speeds you would want to be very careful not to fall off a ladder. You would also not want to drop a spoon on the floor for fear of nuking half the city and leaving a scar on the earth much like a small comet fragment leaves a scar on the surface of Jupiter when it impacts. This would be convincing evidence of the reality of Einstein’s famous equation, E-MC2, which would be verified every time someone fell off a ladder and wound up blowing themselves up and perhaps half the state right along with them because of that tremendous impact. Now having reached the surface of such a body, Superman, who could not blow up because the sun was yellow, would then experience a G-Force of only one G because only the acceleration through the field was affected by this increase in relative mass while the gravitational force field remained constant, being affected only by the absolute mass.

Objects are in motion in a gravitational field for the same reason that objects are in motion anywhere out in three dimensional space. It would appear that motion is space is one of the consequences of the existence of atoms in the universe and the perpetual conflict this creates for the electromagnetic field, which becomes the Don Quixote of the universe, unable to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the low energy state problem, and thus forced to generate a perpetual force field and perpetual motion is the result. Experiencing G Forces on the surface of the earth is just one more manifestation of motion (you do not increase in mass on the surface, another sign that your momentum is not increasing, but rather you have conserved momentum, in the form of your atoms and your molecules and the momentum field, all of which require sorting, and therefore you experience this force field in a futile effort to make them move further down in the field)

Therefore objects are seen in motion in space or in a stronger gravitational field for the same reason that an electromagnetic field can move objects or energy. The nuts and bolts explanation would be similar in both cases because the Universe is a manifestation created by the conflicts and contradictions introduced by one single field, a finite field, which cannot exist in an infinite form. This suggests a profound reason for the quantization of energy (it comes in discrete little packets) since apparently energy is not infinitely divisible (the finite cannot become infinite), and therefore we can see that the creation of ‘matter’ and the resulting gravitational field, surrounded by ‘dark energy’ at rest in the momentum field is a type of solution imposed upon energy because of the impossible contradiction between ‘infinity’ and finite system of energy that cannot become infinite, and therefore must become ‘quantized’ instead.

We can then imagine the universe as being a kind of bubble hanging within an infinite void of ‘no space’ or ‘zero space’, having achieved a type of psuedo-rest by means of the creation of matter, the gravitational field, and ‘dark rest energy’ which is all a way of organizing finite energy in ‘infinite space of zero dimensions’, and the only possible solution, which suggests that it is important to think of ‘zero’ as being a dimension. It would appear that the best explanation for the behavior of the universe would appear to require the inclusion of this infinite, dimensionless zero dimension. That such a zero dimension must exist is implied by the weird sight of this perpetual contradiction and the Don Quixote behavior of the electromagnetic field, which must be a perpetually frustrated force field for a very profound reason.

We know that zero time does exist. Let us assume that an electromagnetic wave leaves a star. It leaves in zero time. It does not accelerate up to the speed of light. It does not accelerate at all. Consider a rising hydrogen atom. It has conserved momentum relative to its position in the gravitational field near the surface of the earth. It does not require acceleration and therefore the total velocity of rising hydrogen must be a zero time phenomenon as well. Instantly the hydrogen atom achieves total potential velocity, with no acceleration curve.

Given that this zero time does exist and is very commonly observed, it should not be such a stretch for people to consider the idea that the zero space or dimension zero also exists. The only problem we have here is that human beings tend to think of an infinite void of zero space with no dimensions as being a three dimensional void stretching off in all directions (as though zero space had a dimension so that it could also have directions you could look and voids you could gaze into as they stretched off into an infinite distance along some dimension or another). Similarly people think of zero time as being a time, being time zero and thus a time as well. That would make the time before time began a time as well, this being the time before time and thus a time of some sort. The only way to deal with the problem is remind oneself that, yes, you imagine zero space as a three dimensional void, but, no, really it is not

 

Related Posts A Unified Field Theory 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *