jump to navigation

A Theory of Everything, Part 1: Fundamentals

Part 1, Fundamental Definitions, Assumptions, Issues with Conventional Wisdom and Practices
Copyright 2012, Alexander Wren

Albert Einstein was unable to complete his unified field theory, his attempt to explain all known forces of nature as properties of one fundamental energy field. Though Einstein’s theories of relativity brought out how certain measurements must vary depending on frame of reference, he was dubious about the unpredictability of quantum mechanics, which theorizes many variations of events have some finite chance of occurring, but what actually happens is not determined until it happens, and can be influenced by observation as well as intention. This non-deterministic effect can be hard to discern or measure because it directly affects the microscopic realm, and consciousness. It was obvious that bias of an observer would affect what was observed, but what is not so obvious is that some bias, hence at least interpretive interference with perception, is unavoidable. Scientists have come to terms with quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle expressed as probability wave functions with points of resolution when things happen, such as observation or other events, but its implications are still hard for many to accept. My theory bases everything on the properties of waves. I believe it is logically self-consistent, though it contests much of current scientific theory, and constructs a fundamentally different explanation of some of what goes on in the universe. As a theory goes, I have no proof, but I formally request thoughtful or skeptical inquiry or debate. Silly or irrelevant comments won’t pass in this section of this blog.

It all starts with resonance. Some aspects of resonance have been studied extensively, and people generally know it as having something to do with qualities of musical instruments, and maybe the laser, but presumably not as the fundamental basis of interaction and order. The energy field of a quantum point in spacetime can be defined as its resonance with itself and the impinging wavefront crossing that point. Part of this resonance field is external, interacting as it propagates through the universe. Integrate that over any patch of spacetime for its energy field. Particles and masses are an oversimplified way of describing aggregated standing waves operating as a holographic unit. The concept of group wave is part of this framework. The wavefront shaping spacetime interacts with itself across the universe, though of course remote effects are relatively negligible, except that they accumulate to a limit. This is one way the big bang theory falls apart. It assumes the effects integrate out to nothing, therefore space is on average locally and globally flat, except near large masses. It has to appear that way because the curvature is smooth and almost unnoticeable locally, more notable primarily at microscopic and higher macroscopic levels, and the path of least resistance is the smooth local geodesic. The universe is holographic and endless; every interval of spacetime has its distinguishing characteristics, while patterned on the whole. The idea of all of existence having a beginning or end in a vanishing point of infinite density is dependent on the notion of a globally flat expanding universe, finite in size and lifetime, cyclically (?) begun and terminated in these singularities of birth and death. There are theories about what came before, but there is no consensus on whether the Big Bang was The Beginning or just the latest cycle of rebirth of the universe.

I define quantum point as the unit patch of spacetime, the patch shaped by a wave in a quantum of time. Time is discontinuous, but smooth, as its quantum is inconceivably short, as short as the quantum of distance. On that level, the passage of time jerks along, but no awareness can perceive intervals that short, such as the point of resolution when an event begins to happen. No wave could exist near that frequency; it would vibrate so fast it would rip the fabric of spacetime, making a black hole seem tame. The quantum of energy is at the opposite extreme of that spectrum, the zero point vibration at a quantum of temperature above absolute zero, the fundamental frequency of which all waves are harmonics. Space and time are interdependent; shaping the wavefront of local spacetime, neither can exist without the other, and it is an odd illusion that they can be considered separately, as if a patch of space could avoid being in flux with time, the illusion of being effectively changeless. Everything is affected by time, all the time, but the effects can seem unnoticeable as they slowly accumulate over time. The discontinuity of time is expressed in entropy, decay, disorder, disease, death, healing, uncertainty, chaos, storms, dreams, creativity, emotion, passion, violence. It gets interwoven into everything, despite being detectable only by indirect means. Like other quantum effects, its effects build up over time.

Curvature rising over hyperbolic spacetime creates the equivalent of the red shift, the stretching wavelength of a wave as it weaves its way through the universe. It seems odd to assume a wave could travel billions of years without losing any energy, yet the observed energy loss is attributed to an expanding finite flat universe, in which the faraway galaxies move away from us faster the farther out, proportionately stretching the wave otherwise expected to vibrate at the same frequency as if it were emitted locally. A wave distributes quanta of its energy field into the wavefront over the spacetime it transits. It gets some back, interacting with other waves and masses as it travels, and in a globally flat universe those effects would wash out, but over eons the accumulation of negative curvature stretches the wave out so most spin energy will be lost. The masses over the horizon called black holes are not like vacuum cleaners sucking up all the local matter and energy; they curve spacetime steeply enough to appear to trap energy, but this extreme (but finite) density of mass radiates energy and generates intense external fields. Scientists have many theories about missing dark matter, which is needed to reconcile the Big Bang theory with observations, and there are several ways matter could go undetected. It could be over the horizon of the larger black holes. Or it could be mass occupying folds in the universe, that consisting of many folds in the hyperbolic spacetime manifold. Or it could be there is far more abundant mass than expected not yet formed into stars and galaxies, so has missed detection. The point is there is no way to determine what is over the horizon or too dim and diffuse to detect in the galactic neighborhood, to say nothing of the difficulties in globally hyperbolic spacetime.

I expect the universe’s horizon is near the predicted age of the universe, when the point singularity supposedly exploded, the Big Bang. The horizon of curving spacetime would make it impossible to observe what happened before, but not imply anything unusual happened at the point. However, since galaxies are known to collide, superclusters of galaxies colliding could create quasars and curve spacetime significantly, maybe enough to push the event over the horizon for people looking for clues to the birth of the universe thirteen odd billion years later. If the universe is multilayered, folding in on itself, the horizon could enclose layers of spacetime, and black holes could be portals to parallel layers. They could also provide shortcuts for space travelers, if navigation could be preserved, which is doubtful but not impossible. If the universe is finite in any measure, this multilayered manifold could explain some dilemmas of current Big Bang theory, but I see the universe as curving slowly off to infinity in space and time. I’d expect if the universe had a finite age, it would be much longer than about three times the age of this planet. Leave it to scientists to create a new creation myth, with the universe born from an exploding singularity three earth lifetimes ago. The earth will be destroyed when the sun goes nova, but the sun is expected to last to about double its current age before then. It is theorized a hotter, more massive star was hereabouts before our sun, in its terminal stages fusing into existence lots of iron and other elements essential to life as we know it, creating the possibility of a new star and planets, one coalescing into this rocky world with lots of water, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and the full spectrum of metals and other elements.

Entropy is the chaotic directive, the opposition to resonance, which orders energy into coherent forms. These are in balance; that balance between coherence and disorder, resonance and dissonance, determines all the laws of nature, but not what happens. On the molecular level, theoretical chemistry has developed the notion of resonance of atomic vibrations within molecular orbitals to describe chemical bonding. This notion can be taken to the macroscopic as well. Vibrations are waves. Waves can exhibit the behavior of masses, by vibrating between boundaries. These are standing waves, that can resonate with little loss of energy or coherence for long periods of time. Many standing waves can share and interact within the same space, standing group waves exhibiting the observed behaviors of masses from the so-called fundamental particles to molecular crystals to organisms to clusters of galaxies.

Mass is a manifestation of the resonance of an aggregate of standing waves. Scientists say the Higgs boson, or informally the God particle, is what gives particles inertia, the resistance to force. They are looking for this magical particle by smashing particles together at near light speeds. They could find the source of inertia much more easily in low energy physics. Spin has resistance to force. The lay person need only try to move a suspended spinning bicycle wheel to understand that principle. Scientists already figured out spin is quantized, so no particle can have zero spin. Photons and neutrinos were supposed to have no mass, (it was later concluded neutrinos have minimal mass and travel slightly slower than light), but they have spin, thus angular momentum, thus resistance to force. Since massless particles travel at the speed of light, special relativity would break down if they were not massless; instead they can have effects similar to masses because they move at the speed of light. The singularity that the special relativistic equations encounter at the speed of light is due to their frame of reference. In hyberbolic spacetime, the singularity turns into the horizon. Nothing really moves at the speed of light, because that is the speed of an electromagnetic wave in perfect vacuum, which exists nowhere. Theoretically one could reach and exceed the speed of light relative to Earth without infinite energy or infinite mass, but going over the horizon one would lose sight of familiar space, perhaps seeing only the insides of black holes. The relativistic equations say exceeding the speed of light is the realm of imaginary space, where only tachyons could exist, as the relativistic factor becomes the square root of a negative number. In a hyperbolic frame of reference, this is equivalent to bending space more than 90 degrees. The curvature of local spacetime increases with density of mass. A rocket moving faster than light might encroach on the realm of black holes, or be able to observe beyond the normal horizon, in that way moving backwards in time. It may be possible to view the past, but not to alter it. It may also be possible to view a possible future, and prevent it.

The principle of resonance ordering energy implies symmetry, consciousness, and life. The development of consciousness is no random accident, fluke, or gift from an almighty being. The universe is all consciousness, the ordering and chaos of all its waves forming itself. People have caused all our own problems; it makes no sense to blame problems on an almighty being either. This idea of a single supreme Being is foreign to me; I see no unitary consciousness at work. Consciousness is diverse beyond imagining, not perfect by any stretch. Perfection is a comforting illusion, like life after death. Life after death is just denial of death; the energy and experiences of each life ultimately have to relinquish cohesion and consciousness, but can be accessed by other beings long after death, theoretically forever. Each life is part of that wavefront interacting with the neighborhood, planet, and universe. In that sense, individual consciousness never dies; it retreats into the whole from whence it was derived. Consciousness is holographic as well, though people are in the habit of limiting the range of their consciousness. This is called morality and social norms of civilization, but I think is more about getting people to believe what they’re trained to believe, to respect order as defined by authorities.

Perfection would imply no room for improvement, no way to build on the perfect to make it still better. This would be a limitation, a flaw in the perfection, this incapacity to change in response to whatever happens, which makes it artificially constrained and imperfect. Einstein made relative a household term, not that many people understand what he meant by it. Better is a relative term, perfection an absolute term, which I just showed limits and thus contradicts itself. There is no best or perfect way; there has to be a better way, always, because it has to be possible to build on a better way to make it better. This is far from limited by the imagination of present day humanity. Absolutes about people are few and far between, but many have been invented as dogma to control how people think. Absolutes range from meaningless truisms to insidious dogma, but there are a few undeniable facts about people that matter. People can think, is one, though it seems many find ways to avoid thinking in independent ways, such as believing in dogma. People can be violent, though it seems believing in certain dogma goes hand in hand with finding ways to justify violence by demonizing those who are different or disagree, the heathen, heretic, unbeliever, evil, witch, animal, subhuman, baby killer, whatever the terms of the moment, these have been means of controlling and manipulating the masses into accepting policies that aren’t good for anyone except the powers that be. The lure of dogma has infected science as well. Medicine may be the most orthodox and intolerant of its mavericks, painting the quack label on heretics. Dogma have no lure for me. Scientists would do well to remember the ideas of science, as opposed to its products, are in the realm of theory. In that realm I believe only what I find impossible to doubt.

I find it nearly impossible to doubt the universe is teeming with life, that would not necessarily develop along similar lines as on this planet. I doubt other technologically competent life forms would use our primitive microwaves to communicate; the bandwidth is too low. People use micro and radio waves because the air and structures interfere with higher frequency waves, as far as is known. I bet there is a way around that, but listening for aliens on frequencies people use is likely a fool’s errand. It should be possible to generate low power coherent beams that can pass through air without distortion in some frequency bands of infrared light. Possibly only human scientists would have the arrogance to think they have mastered genetics and nuclear energy, yet not raise hell when people routinely communicate on low frequencies that probably will cause more than a few cancers to heavy users of cellular phone technology, for example. People also use mutagenic and carcinogenic poisons on their food, to kill pestilent insects and vegetation. Human use of technology is reckless in the extreme, but the people have been fleeced, the wool pulled over the public eye with soothing reassurances to trust the wisdom of the experts, and the sheep have no idea how thoroughly scientists have been corrupted by money. Science is supposed to be helping everyone by developing technology to make life better, not to enhance profits for genetic engineers and artisans of more efficient means of killing and mind control. Profits and military technology make a noxious brew; the expressions unholy alliance, national security graft, hyped threats, mad science, cost-benefit analysis, downplaying risks and consequences, unwinnable endless wars, belligerent patriotic propaganda manipulating naive sheep come to my mind. The precautionary principle is turned on its head, as it would conflict with standard military and industrial practices, as well as such nonsense as only Japan has to be concerned about its nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima, and the world need not worry about ten kilograms of radioactive cobalt dispersed over the planet when Russia’s Mars mission crashed back to Earth in January. At least it isn’t cobalt-60, Russia said, which emits worse gamma rays and lasts longer than cobalt-57.

Those are examples of human incoherency. Coherency is how resonance orders complex structures. A life form depends on the coherency of its consciousness; this is called the survival instinct. People are the only species to cause species extinction on such a massive scale. Invasive species can cause some extinction of local species, but nothing on the scale of the results of human activity, the usual carrier of invasive species and poisons. Only people can override their survival instinct to the point it is permissible and expected to foul the nest, as long as it primarily affects a poor or sparsely populated neighborhood, or the polluter can spin that dirty work as unavoidable. The polluter may get a slap on the wrist, a minor fine at worst. This is peculiar to me. What is the meaning of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness if someone has the right to poison others because it was too costly or otherwise unfeasible to deal with chemicals or pests safely? Who gave anybody the right to conduct field experiments of agricultural genetic engineering, let alone grow them for food or fuel, and put pressure on resistant farmers and nations to take on this junk food? Science has become all about making money and death; that’s where the money is. Research for the sake of scientific truth and theory still goes on, but that’s not where the money is. Something is wacko about that kind of value system, but I digress.

There are only a few elements that should be avoided as much as possible. The radioactive elements, mercury, and lead on the heavy side; on the light side, beryllium and fluorine; and in the middle, arsenic and cadmium. The human body has no use for any of these, and all are toxic in all forms, though the intensity and consequences of toxicity vary for various forms. Yet all of these have industrial uses. Lead has been used in gasoline, paint, plumbing, glass crystal, and solder. The first two have been phased out, as they were unnecessary exposure that endangered everyone. California and Vermont have passed laws to restrict average lead content in plumbing fixtures to a quarter percent, much tighter than federal lead-free (sic) standards. Fluoride is put in water and toothpaste as well as pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs, while mercury is put into dental fillings, vaccines, thermometers, and supposedly ecologically friendly compact fluorescent light bulbs, while spread far and wide by burning coal. Lead arsenate was a common pesticide in its day, possibly linked to polio outbreaks. Other elements are less dangerous, but all are toxic in some form, though life has ways of utilizing most of them in other forms. Chlorine in the form of chloride is essential to life, in its pure gas concentrated form, highly unstable and reactive and one of the quickest ways to kill, and in most other forms and designed combinations, watch out. Many pesticides depend on chlorine, but they attack mammals in different ways than the targeted pests.

Needless to say, humans as a species are incoherent, destructive, celebrating or blind to arrogance in most of its forms and effects, and lucky they aren’t sicker. That will come soon enough, the way things are going. Politicians are the only group I think are more arrogant than scientists, but naturally, those two groups walk hand in hand, along with their enablers, the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about, with technological capacity to spy and kill I doubt he or anyone of that era could have imagined.

All this about human frailty is a digression, but I have to give some background as to why I’m more than a bit wary of describing things of obvious military utility, because my theory of electromagnetism has that in spades. If someone thinks I’m exaggerating, check out this story about the Navy using electromagnetism to shoot hypersonic projectices, or this video of the Navy launching fighter jets from aircraft carriers. This is just a tip of the iceberg of potential military abuse of electromagnetism. Technology is a tool that can be used to great benefit or destruction. It is not intrinsically bad, but the system is set up to encourage its abuse, for profit or ability to kill or control. There are better options and uses of technology, but they are rarely rewarded. Human motive power is a similar tool, but the kinds of power that the system values are about manipulation, control, winning, killing the enemy, not the kinds of power people tap to create, innovate, love, empathize, think of new ideas and ways to make things better. Power is defined in physics as the rate of change of energy, so greater power means more change of energy per unit of time. Power could be defined as the ability to influence energy. People could use more of their ability to make things better, if the culture wasn’t set up to value the kinds of power people abuse, to control, undermine, and hurt each other, and other living beings. This isn’t set in stone, though it has seemed that way for millennia; whatever power structure people have made, it can and should be torn down. A social structure not built on respect and ethics must encourage corruption and abuse. Laws and regulations are not sufficient when the basis of a culture is corrupt. The abuse of power has a way of compounding itself.

Gravity is the macroscopic pulling together force; a planet stays in its orbit because it has to follow a geodesic in space curved just sharply enough by its sun to keep that orbit stable. Scientists theorize about dark matter, dark energy, cosmic ripples, fundamental particles to explain observed effects. There are always many ways to explain or describe anything capable of description, and all are imperfect descriptions of reality. Language has its limitations, but some limitations on consciousness are real, while others are artificially imposed.

Dark matter is supposed to explain why gravity effects of galactic clusters are observed to be much stronger than anticipated from detectable masses. Why it is expected that most of an energy field on that scale could be attributed to detectable masses is beyond me. There could be an underestimation of the available matter, and an overestimation of how quickly stars form from that matter. Curvature doesn’t average out to nothing; it accumulates. On the scale of spacetime between galactic superclusters, it seems arbitrary to assume vector quantities will average out to nothing. If spacetime is curved randomly, the odds would be infinitesimal; if curved by the impinging wavefront, a smaller infinitesimal. Gravity is one type of electromagnetic field resonance. First order electromagnetic resonance effects are well known, the attraction and repulsion based on alignment of the respective magnetic poles, or directions of current. The strong and weak forces are supposed to explain what keeps atomic nuclei together, most of the time. Standing waves have configurations of exceptional stability. Some of these are the various atoms, but all particles, thus all masses, are more or less stable coherent configurations of waves standing together as a resonating holographic unit. The frequency corresponding to the mass of a proton divided by 2 to the 32 power is in the mid-infrared, wavelength about 5700 nanometers; I call this the second fundamental frequency and the building block of matter.

The atoms in life forms are animated with resonance, expressing itself in the will to survive. The atoms vibrate in a characteristic tune. When that breaks down, the life form dies. This happens in individual cells all along, but life forms are holographic and multiply redundant, so can recover from minor wounds. People have a unique ability to sabotage their will to survive. Belief systems alter internal vibrations to reflect what one believes. This is another kind of self-reinforcing mechanism, skewing perception. Perception is supposed to help a life form survive. When people distort their perceptions, the boundaries of reality no longer apply, shifting to the reality we know, created by death worship. Isn’t the monotheistic god god of war and death? If not, who or what is? I could say I worship life, but life is not perfect, so I’m really an agnostic mystic worried sick about how science has been hijacked, to serve death and mercantilism, the worst humans can dream up, ruled by corrupt institutions too big to fail, driving common people and other life forms into misery, if not extinction. What gives people the right to extinguish other species, for profit yet? Convenience? Comfort? The arrogance of our species is only exceeded by how recklessly intelligent people act when money and power are at stake. Yet if people used available technology and their own power of thought wisely, the world could be so much better off, inconceivably prosperous, creative, innovative. The tragedy of human foolishness is boundless, the suffering so unnecessary. I’m not the first to say this. Buckminster Fuller tried to get across what could be done with technology available in his time. Nowadays the best ideas and technologies languish, growing but nowhere near their potential or what would be required to make a real dent in greenhouse gas emissions, so established Big Business can keep on raking in the dough.

I didn’t want to have to get into all this, but it seems to me human psychology is already wrecking the planet, so before the military minds try to figure out how to make worse weapons with the capacities of resonant waves, maybe they ought to think about what the hell they are trying to do with their ability to create hell on earth. As is well known, wave guides can amplify coherent waves to great intensity. The tuning fork is the well-known example, resonating to a frequency determined by its shape and composition. Life is like that, but it is a symphony of countless waves, synchronized and dissonant all at once. There is no perfect harmony, because that would imply a form of uniformity which could never be perfect, for the same reasons perfection in anything is unattainable. Balance is more crucial to life than harmony, and balance implies embracing diversity.

A wave guide is a resonant chamber for waves of a definite frequency, so a coherent standing wave can be amplified into a laser. This was done first with microwaves, so the predecessor was the maser, Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. The principle can also be used for electromagnetic gyroscopes, which seem a likely engine for space flight. Electromagnetic interactions can easily offset gravity, so orienting a high energy electromagnetic gyroscope to repel the local magnetic field should provide enough lift to explain flying saucers, and their ability to maneuver on a dime. Since stellar magnetic fields extend into interstellar space, space flight using this principle might be possible.

The Big Bang is a circular theory; it depends on a globally flat spacetime, which fits with the standard coordinate system. If spacetime is hyperbolic and infinite, that coordinate system is a distorting lens. There may well be inconceivable explosive collisions of galaxies, and their clusters, throughout the history of the universe. NASA has a picture of a cluster collision on its Hubble Telescope web page. My point is the Big Bang, the idea the universe came from a singularity at a certain point in time, is not the only way to explain observations. That idea sounds to me like God creating the universe from nothing. Scientists should know better than to get too attached to their theories, because no theory has ever stood the test of time. Only the latest theories seem right, since it generally takes some time for theories to be understood for their merits and flaws, so corrections can be made and hopefully move science closer to describing reality. Sometimes scientists get lost in circular reasoning. Orthodox medicine is a prime example of that trap, with the masters of nuclear power, genetics, and the chemistry of death right up there. They’re all so cocksure they know what they’re doing. History will be incredulous, if the species survives this brazen lunacy of fouling ourselves and our nest, treating people and the planet like guinea pigs for an experiment, better living through chemistry. That is possible, but not the way industrial scientists are going about it; their role is to help big business make more money, not to help people in general. Science has such promise, potential to fix all the problems it has created, if only it were used wisely instead of for money and destruction. That’s what politicians could change, but they aren’t about to antagonize their big money backers.

The way a patch of spacetime is perceived depends on the coordinate system, the frame of reference of the theory behind the interpretation of the measurement of the energy field of that patch. People all learn of the standard four coordinates, three perpendicular directions defining space and a timeline. In mathematics, a dimension is simply an independent variable. Consciousness therefore has, for all intents and purposes, unimaginable potential, because the combinations of its independent variables are virtually endless. Maybe not quite infinite per being, but the universe probably has infinite life.

Solar systems could be the result of an unstable binary star system explosion. Jupiter may have once been a proper star, but exploded into a few huge gas giants and a whole bunch of rocky worlds. Earth and Venus are virtually the same size, uncannily close in many ways, but on Venus the greenhouse effect is in full sway, so life as we know it is unlikely, unless some kind of microorganism can survive in such an extreme environment. Given the tendency of resonance to cluster and organize waves, this may create consciousness in environments we would never expect to find it.

The search for missing fundamental particles, along with dark energy and matter comprising most of the universe, shows the holes in current theories. Scientists have no way of measuring mass over the horizon they call a black hole. They can measure its gravity, but gravity is directional (a vector field, like all forces) and much of the field of such a mass is directed outside spacetime we can observe. The concept of parallel universes was a stab at explaining spacetime beyond what we can observe, but curvature can explain it readily, if one uses a coordinate system that avoids a singularity when curvature reaches what is called the event horizon. Some of the dark matter is thought to consist of intergalactic clouds of hot gases, which the Chandra X ray Observatory describes as

The hot gas, which appears to lie like a fog in channels carved by rivers of gravity, has been hidden from view since the time galaxies formed. It is thought that this gas forms part of a gigantic system, or web, of hot gas and dark matter that defines the cosmic landscape. The hot gas part of this system could contain more material than all the stars in the universe. Ultraviolet telescopes had detected cooler components of the hot gas system, but most of it is now known to be detectable only with an extremely sensitive X-ray telescope.

This sounds to me like galaxies in formation, or globular clusters of stars. It doesn’t sound like evidence for a universe eventually losing all its energy to entropy.

Antimatter is simply matter flipped around, which requires considerable energy, released when it reverts from that excited state. Antimatter and matter don’t annihilate each other, but their collision will release as much energy as if they did, the anti-particle will revert to ordinary matter, and both will be flung violently aside. Radioactivity is the reversion of another level of excited states. Atoms can be in many states above and beyond their reactions to normal variations in their surroundings. If lead can bond with helide ions (alpha particles) there may not be any real elements beyond bismuth. Lead is the last stable element of the carbon family; that family bonds with just about everything, and carbon and silicon radicals have been found to bond with helium. The bonds of the carbon family are legendary, from diamonds to the soft denseness of lead. The most stable isotope of uranium could be an almost stable compound of lead bound with eight helides. I wonder how pure fissionable material really is. Metal crystals can have extremely strong bonds. All the resonant energy of the crystalline structure bonds it together. All those fission products could be fragments of impure lead helide crystals, shattered by neutron bombardment, which means gamma rays, the more energetic of which can break any bond, presumably, in nature. People probably do not realize a run of the mill gamma ray carries comparable energy to the mass of an electron measured as energy. One atom of cobalt 60, the common radioisotope from nuclear explosions and accidents, releases an electron with two gamma rays, both heavier than two electrons and capable of breaking any organic bond in their path.

The lay person may not realize when scientists talk about harnessing fusion energy or hydrogen bombs, they aren’t talking about the reaction that supposedly powers stars, fusion of ordinary hydrogen. People haven’t figured out how to do that, so they fake it with uncommon isotopes of hydrogen. That still can produce surplus power, theoretically, so the quest for the elusive inexhaustible power source goes on. It’s possible fusion is an illusion. Stars could generate their heat through the pressure of that much compressed gas. In other words, the heat of a star is a resonance effect. The molten core of rocky planets is also due to high pressure, though that pressure doesn’t compare to stellar cores. Internal planetary heat is attributed to radioactive breakdowns. Scientists know how closely related pressure is to temperature. The ideal gas law approximates the relation as linear; as pressure goes up in a constant volume, so goes the temperature. Other atoms in a star could be buried in the interior, so their spectra is too diffuse to be detected by our instruments, only released when the star ends its life in a nova. I don’t get what it is about explosions that attracts such interest from scientists; aside from the ever deadlier bombs, they gave explosions credit for creating the universe, in the Big Bang, and creating all heavier elements, in stellar explosions. Neither the universe nor any natural element had to be created in the first place; both have always existed and will exist. Everything changes, all the time, in response to everything going on everywhere.

One measure of a theory is its ability to make accurate predictions of future events, results of causes, measurements themselves. I periodically see claims in the media that scientists had definitively proved the Big Bang or some other theory because of a measurement that fit their prediction, but real scientists don’t generally confuse evidence with proof. It is one thing to construct an apparatus to measure what a theory has predicted it will measure. That’s evidence that the theory can make accurate predictions, but not proof of anything beyond that. This is a common confusion about causality. One cannot conclude A is the cause of B unless A is both necessary and sufficient to cause B. Any event can have multiple possible causes, and is always influenced by quantum effects. Unless one can prove there can be no other possible cause of an event, one cannot claim to prove that A is the cause of B. One common example of this fallacy is the establishment consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS, when possible causes of immune system collapse in people, particularly malnourished impoverished people in an increasingly toxic environment, are legion. Another is the notion that controlled demolition must be the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. It wasn’t just the fires, or the jets or debris slamming into them, but the combination could have been sufficient. Not necessary, but sufficient to bring the buildings down, and no laws of physics would have been violated. I wrote an essay on my theory of that phenomenal smackdown.

Human recklessness comes in when money becomes the overriding concern, so using and dumping toxic chemicals has been taken for granted, a prerogative of people if they can make more money by ignoring the damage done. The priorities are backwards when money trumps safety, especially with modern technology. People in general, and it seems most scientists, have no idea what kind of dynamite they play with routinely, because cutting corners appears cost effective when those damages are ignored, or written off as a small cost of doing business. I’m way too old to be amazed by human folly by now, but I see people who I think know better, or ought to, acting too much like mad scientists for me to not make some noise about it once in awhile. Too bad they have such influence and power to cause havoc. The world is in such trouble partly because mad science gets taken seriously, while real dangers get downplayed, evidence dismissed or claimed not to exist. Some concerned scientists are trying to raise hell, but they can barely slow down the juggernaut of science for profit, consequences be damned. Meanwhile I’m a nobody making a living writing software, thinking I understand how to finish what Einstein started, knowing I probably won’t get the chance. My time is running out. Those toxic chemicals in routine use because the precautionary principle is not in force, so the benefits supposedly outweigh the risks, will finish me off sooner or later.


No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s