(Click Figures for clarified magnified images)
Chapter 1. A Synopsis of the EEMU Process
An hypothesis is qualitatively constructed that presents an Equilibrium Evaporative Model of the Universe (EEMU). The EEMU permits, but does not require a “Big Bang” singularity. It also provides an explanation for the “cosmological constant” proposed by Einstein. The EEMU provides an alternate explanation for the observed occurrence of cosmic microwave background (CMBR) radiation and for expansion of the observable universe. The EEMU is basically described as equilibrium, thermodynamically-evaporative, ongoing process that is evolving our observable universe.
EEMU may be construed (and possibly rejected) by some as simply a new twist on a previous theoretical (Read: ‘Continuous Creation Theory’) model of the universe. An open-mind, receptive to old as well as new ideas, is a requisite criterion for critically evaluating this new hypothesis. No math proofs are offered in the narrative – it is only an hypothesis.
The Total Universe is a combination of what is herein named “Sub Quantal Reality”, or unobservable SQR and “Material Reality, or observable MR. SQR is a virtual sea or all pervasive matrix of extremely high energy (~10120 ergs/cc!!) that probably exists as pre-quarkal equivalents (PQEs) and unfettered quarks. SQR is an all-pervasive medium that exists within both the observable (MR) and unobservable (SQR) universe. This highly energetic environment may (or may not) have any ordered form or quarkal structures. SQR is the ‘stuff’ from whence virtual particles (VP) derive and (if they remain in MR) become massive particles (MPs; electrons, photons, protons, neutrons, etc.) in MR. The VP à MP transition occurs when SQR energy fluctuates (i.e., thermodynamically disequilibrates or evaporates) or otherwise degrades to a ‘threshold energy level’. At this threshold level, quarks in SQR are constrained under extant thermodynamic conditions to combine into more-ordered states, to form VPs. This transition to VPs is irreversible (see below exceptions) if VPs transform to MPs, and this transition to MPs is accompanied by an also irreversible free-energy drop that presents itself as the cosmic microwave background (CMBR) observed in MR.
Thus, the material, or observable, universe (i.e., MR) is directly and continuously derived from SQR by an disequilibrium thermodynamic process (which I call quantum evaporation) in which total energy (Esqr) fluctuations in SQR tend toward a loss of quarkal components from SQR through a quantum evaporative process that further results in “condensation” (for want of a better term) of these quarkal components, via formation of VPs, many of which remain as MPs in MR. This evaporative process may be analogized similar to “steam” or “steam bubbles” volatilizing from a pot of boiling water into the surrounding, cooler environment. This quantum (or quarkal) “steam” then condenses into VPs that may persist as MR particulates – i.e., MPs in MR. Similar too, to steam deriving from boiling water, condensation to massive particulates (MPs) is a seemingly irreversible equilibrium process (it is actually reversible only upon the addition of sufficient energy to the particulates to re-establish initial conditions, e.g., black holes or gravitational singularities. This process is also locally and temporally reversible at the SQR-MR boundary when VPs are created, and then disappear, back into the SQR medium).
The disequilibrium evaporative process also produces a commensurate (single, or possibly multiple) step-like, threshold release of energy during the SQRà MR transition that is (quantifiable as) the cosmic microwave background (CMBR) radiation. (NOTE: Observed slight regional (universe scale) fluctuations observed in CMBR radiation are consistent with a random “roughness” of the EEMU model process - similar to random stream roils in a pot of boiling water where steam bubbles are released from the surface). It is also interesting to note that the observed “granularity" (i.e., “bubble-like”) aspect of CMBR distribution throughout the observable universe is not inconsistent with this visualization.
The EEMU model also envisions the SQR to MR transition as a potential source for cosmic rays that are residual from the VP to MP transformation. Expansive evaporation (analogous to cooling) of (at least some portion of) SQR components to MR in the EEMU model is consistent with the observed non-directional expansion of the MR portion of the total universe.
It should be reminded to interested readers that that the EEMU hypothesis visualizes the total universe as a matrix containing both SQR and MR in which SQR (undetectable and unobservable from MR) is an all-pervasive (omnipresent), ‘relatively homogeneous’ fabric that exists within the total extent of the total universe (including MR). Note that SQR is non-detectible and unobservable from MR because the SQR fabric of such a high energy (i.e., >>> high frequency and <<< low wave-length) state that it simply does not interact directly with matter in MR. In MR, for a “detector” to work, it (the detector) must respond to, or interact with, energetic (or other detectible attributes) fluctuations that will affect (or jiggle) the detector. Such fluctuations must be on at least the same size order of size magnitude as the detector for such interactions to be “detectible”. A
quick look at the classic electromagnetic spectrum reminds us that energetic waves shorter than about 10 -20 meters (highly energetic cosmic rays) are of too short a wavelength (and too rare) to be easily detected by current MR detectors. (NOTE: very, very short wavelengths may be detected by monitoring static or dynamic magnetic field fluctuations induced by interactions with such high energy SQR media, or by ordered harmonics thereof.).
Analogize detecting SQR by visualizing an attempt to catch fog (or steam) (SQR) with only a sieve (MR detector). This ‘fog’ is undetectable (i.e., ‘uncatchable’) until the sieve openings are reduced to the approximate (or smaller) size as the fog’s moisture particles.
In conclusion, the proposed EEMU hypothesis can be most easily analogized as follows:
“Visualize a limp, partially nitrogen-only-inflated balloon (MR precursor?) suspended in a sealed box (SQR?) filled a 90:10 helium/nitrogen gas mixture at an elevated pressure. The balloon skin is semi-permeable to helium, but not to nitrogen. After some time, helium in the box (i.e., outside the balloon) will begin to permeate the balloon skin and enter into the balloon to the exclusion of nitrogen in the box surrounding the balloon. As this “osmotic” permeation continues, the volume (and partial pressure) of helium inside the balloon (and thus “size” of the expanding balloon) will increase to a point where the pressure of partial helium inside the balloon is in equilibrium with the partial pressure of helium surrounding the balloon. The balloon’s skin will stretch and expand during the equilibrating process. If the surrounding SQR medium is of unlimited (infinite?) extent, this expansion will not end. If the SQR ‘volume’ is limited, the expansion will end at some future time. (NOTE: To visualize the expansion of the universe, you may want to paint spots on the outside balloon skin? This is the classical ‘lay-person’ analogy for expansion of the universe).
The accompanying graphics (Figures 1 - 5) characterize the SQR to MR Transition and summarize the visualized concepts proposed in this narrative.
Chapter 2. The Observational/Visualization Method
I have tried in Chapter 1 to present my basic concept of the EEMU hypothesis. Some readers will undoubtedly have problems visualizing how the process works.
Digression: My basic academic training has been in observational science (Geology). Observers are trained either to just “see” processes – or to understand and visualize the symbiotic interplay of all processes. I chose the latter route. In geology, one must be able to visualize, for example, what is actually going-on upon – and within- the bowels of the earth while simply looking at a rock and interpreting its history. As an extension of this observation, the true geologist can visualize the interaction of various physical and chemical processes, and see, for example, ‘in-his-mind’s-eye’ exactly what the mantle of the earth really ‘looks like’ as the plastic, ‘silly-putty-like’ slumbersome mantle ever-so-slowly churns and re-crystallizes under the tremendous temperatures and pressures deep within the earth. Looking at a garnet peridotite (a type of mantle material) nodule extracted from a kimberlite (diamond source), the geologist has no problem visualizing that the mantle must appear as a spectacular, colorful, variegated ‘cookie-dough’ consistency chocked with purple and orange garnets, 7-up-bottle-colored pyroxenes, and sparkling metallic ilmenites. The lesson learned: By making astute observations and visualizing the interactions of myriad processes, one can more-easily understand the workings of the universe . . . every seemingly-independent process is actually intricately interlaced with others, weaving the fabric of the universe.
Chapter 3. The Apparent Nature of Our Universe and Some Digressions
At first glance, the universe appears to be a composite ‘mush’ of material reality (ergo, MR) and energy. Matter is not difficult for most to visualize, because we usually can ‘see’ it, or otherwise sense it in our everyday lives. Some matter we can feel . . . some we can smell . . . most of it, or its characteristic attributes, we can sense either directly or indirectly via certain detectors designed to interact with it. Most of us tend to think of “matter” as small or large groupings of those little bits called atoms (and their smaller quark constituents). We thus sense MR by the process interactions of energy and matter.
We also can sense certain electromagnetic energies, depending upon their wavelengths. We can physically sense some . . . sunlight, microwaves, etc. . . .that directly interact with our personal matter (e.g., our bodies or coffee in the microwave oven). Other energies require certain detector devices designed to interact with other energy wavelengths (or frequencies, or energy levels), for example, radioactivity, radio waves, etc. Some energy forms also appear to be ‘static’ . . . like magnetism . . . or gravity . . . but even the fields of these energy forms are mostly detectible with the right apparatus. We thus sense most energy by process interactions of energy and matter.
But wait! (Another digression). . . . Is this all there is to the universe? . . . . What about all that immaterial stuff we also believe in . . . such as intelligence, emotions, religion, etc. . . . . and exactly where DID all that ‘stuff’ (matter and energy) come from? . . .from a singular point Big Bang in the middle of ‘nothing’? . . . from the directed acts of a benevolent Creator? . . . .??? Geez!! No wonder it’s all so confusing! But again, I digress. These issues may be seemingly unknowable (Read: undetectable?) at present, but I hope the discourse I’ve prepared herein will yield some level of comfort, understanding, and enlightenment for the interested reader. I think about such things and I try to interpret my observations within the realm of logic and probability, and the within the scope of my own experiential knowledge. You may interpret such things (based on YOUR experience, beliefs, and knowledge) entirely differently.
(A bigger digression!): I am a scientist and an observer (and too often, an ego-centered philosopher!) with an unprovable belief system. As a scientist, I believe that our universe was created (how-so-ever) and operates according to certain physical “laws” – many of which we have yet to discover and fully-comprehend. I attempt to understand operational processes in all that I observe and I look for ‘mechanisms’. But, I am not so much of a dyed-in-the-wool scientist that I believe all of this happened by sheer chance from existing conditions. I prefer to ‘believe’ (based on what? . . many other scientists might say!) that the Universe was created by intelligent design (Read: God? . . .Intelligence? . . .?) . I feel (?) comfortable in my relationship with this ‘source’. If God is the prime mover, then he must be a fantastic scientist – what a wonderful experiment!
If my beliefs are anywhere near correct, our main purpose (aside from spiritual evolution) in being here is simple:
The prime mover started all of this universe stuff . . . but, he is not a physical entity
(Read: immaterial, spiritual, and infer SQR). He has no known physical attributes (Read: physical senses) by which to examine the created physical MR portion of universe; therefore, he relies on us (evolved living creations) and our empirical five, or more, physical senses to observe the MR creation instead. Then, as we make the final transition (Read: die) from the physical realm (read: MR), our sensorial observations are returned (Read: downloaded via consciousness or soul?) to the origin. Necessary adjustments (Read: tweak SQR) to the MR universe, within the constraints of physical laws, are then made.
Now that I’ve expounded so many non-scientific ramblings in these philosophical digressions - back to the subject at hand.
Chapter 4. Visualizing MR, SQR, and the EEMU Process
In Chapter 1, a synopsis of the EEMU Hypothesis was presented and graphically illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. In Chapter 2, a brief discussion of the observational/visualization process was presented. Chapter 3 is basically a digression regarding my personal beliefs and is not a technical discourse. In Chapter 4, I will attempt to
Because MR is familiar to us as a basically observable system, and I have elucidated the nature of MR in Chapter 3, let’s get right on to understanding the SQR system. “What the heck is this SQR stuff?”
One of the quirky things that scientists have ‘discovered’ in our universe is that virtual particles VPs (i.e., protons, neutrons, electrons, their anti-particles, etc.) seem to pop into our MR observational field quite unexpectedly from time to time – from the supposedly empty vacuum of space. VPs mostly disappear soon after they arrive. Where do these VPs come from? . . . and . . . . where do they go, if they don’t remain in MR? Surely these VPs must arise, or be created, from something that possesses a suitable high-energy flux, filled with those critters we have come to call “quarks” and whatever holds them together (gluons) – or their precusors. In various symmetric configurations, quarks make up real (MR) particles like neutrons and protons. Modern physicists think quarks are the basic, inseparable building blocks for all matter as we observe it. I call this stuff SQR, or Subquantal Reality. It has been conjectured (Read: conjured-up?) by many modern and historical physicists. This stuff has been construed as a virtual, high-energy quantum condition that some call the Quark-Gluon Soup, the Zero Point Energy matrix, or the Free-Energy domain. Regardless of what it really is, or how it has been presented by others, this stuff is REALLY high-energy! – many orders of magnitude (that’s powers-of-ten for all you mathematicians!) greater than the energy density that we measure, or estimate, for our observable MR universe. Many have hinted that this stuff is invisible “dark energy”, “dark matter”, or think it may be the elusive “cosmological constant” that Albert Einstein sought to explain the expansion of our MR universe. It may also be analogous to the “luminiferous ether” promulgated late in the 18th century. The main problem (or, Catch 22) is . . . . We’re pretty sure the stuff exists, but we haven’t yet been able figure-out how to detect it. Michelson and Morley, and others, tried. There are some very logical and basic reasons for this quandary.
I chose the term Subquantal Reality, or SQR, to represent this elusive stuff, because, if quarks come from it, and it cannot yet be “quantized”, it is aptly called “subquantal”. And since it very likely exists, or is real, it is a “reality” possessing attributes separate from our matter universe (which I call Material Reality, or MR, by similar reasoning).
I have spent many years, as a non-physicist and non-mathematician, exploring the puzzling realm of our universe; how it came-into-being, why we see it the way we do, and that it must certainly be comprehensible if only we understand how it works in its entirety. This is a tall order, but I have a GUT (pun intended) feeling in my TOE (again, pun intended) that I am at least partially correct in my speculations.
Here’s how it all works (Refer to Figures 1 – 5):
SQR Fundamental Concepts and the Equilibrium Evaporative Process
The disequilibrium discussed above may be related to localized, thermodynamic ‘slowing’ of PQE to c or sub-c velocities in the interactive vicinity of existing MR particles.
Thus we can visualize (in 3-D) a multitude (infinite?) of micro-singularity activities, and from each is pouring their share of new MR particles at some equilibrium-determinant rate. The net effect of this ‘evaporative’ process will create a mathematical result that is indistinguishable from the MR expansion, or the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), predicted by the currently-popular Big Bang hypothesis. Even an initial evaporative ‘surge’ or ‘inflationary stage’ at each micro-singularity portal may be anticipated as the portal initially ‘opens’ at an SQE point of maximum, or transient, SQR disequilibrium.
or absolute temperature of CMBR will be a direct measure of whether the rate of SQE à MR is increasing or decreasing. The universe is thus continuing to evolve.
Single strings à combined strings à quarks à VPs à matter in MR
It is important to suspect (from our MR physical laws) that the entire (SQR and MR) universe system is thermodynamically ‘cooling-off’. However, the nature of SQR is only speculated here, and a few aeons in the future, scientists may discover that SQR is actually the product of an even more-amazing and grandiose precursor. As Rosanna Rosanadana (Gilda Radner) said . . . . “It’s always SOMETHING! . . . and I’m sure that Gilda now knows the real story!
In this narrative, I have tried to convey a relatively simple speculation for seemingly complex and poorly-understood observations and concepts regarding our universe. It will undoubtedly be rejected, whole or in part, by some mainstream physicists; others may find portions of it intellectually stimulating, to the point where they step ‘outside their own box’. I hasten-back to what someone (H. L. Mencken, I think) once said: “To every complex problem, there is a simple answer . . . and it is usually wrong.”
Best wishes for a happy and creative life . . . leave something more for the universe than when you arrived.
William L. Mansker, Ph.D.
December 7, 2010
(Revised January 3, 2012)
Definitions and Assumptions (as used in EEMU Hypothesis)
c = speed of light; upper limit in the material, observable universe (MR; Material Reality); lower limit in SQR (Subquantal Reality) (dark energy/matter). Wikipedia: The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second.
Dark Energy = superluminal (tachyonic) energy matrix; equivalent to SQR in EEMU Hypothesis. Wikipedia: dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
Dark Mass = superluminal (tachyonic) proto-mass; includes quarks, gluons, dark matter, and possible strings and branes. Wikipedia: Dark matter is matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects.
E-mc2 = Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relationship; applicable to the observable GR universe. Wikipedia: mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant.
Ed=md + CMBR= Direct mass-energy equivalence relationship; applicable to SQR; Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is residual from the conversion of
Gluon = attractive energy field that binds quarks. Wikipedia: Gluons are elementary particles which act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the color force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles
Mass = (m) Observable, detectible subatomic and atomic particles (baryons); components of material reality (MR) in EEMU Hypothesis. Wikipedia: In physics, mass, more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed.
MR = Material Reality in the EEMU Hypothesis; synonymous with the observable universe
Pre-existent Universe = Dark energy-dark mass universe that preceded and is coeval with the observable, material universe space-time fabric, from which and into which, MR is continually evolving via the SQR à MR transition.
QGP = Quark-Gluon Plasma Wikipedia: A quark–gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup is a phase of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which exists at extremely high temperature and/or density. This phase consists of asymptotically free quarks and gluons.
Quark = quantum mass component of virtual particles (VP) and mass (MR) (neutrons and protons). Wikipedia: A quark is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent
SQR = Subquantal Reality in the EEMU Hypothesis; synonymous (?) with dark energy and Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP).
Tachyon = a superluminal entity (energy or mass) that vibrates or propagates at speeds greater than c; typically in SQR, dark energy (Ed) or dark mass (md). Wikipedia: A tachyon is a hypothetical subatomic particle that always moves faster than light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon would be a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time.
VP = Virtual Particle = An intermediate quantum state between the SQRà MR transition. Wikipedia: A particle that exists for a limited time and space. The energy and momentum of a virtual particle are uncertain according to the uncertainty principle. The degree of uncertainty of each is inversely proportional to time duration (for energy) or to position span (for momentum).
Addendum 9/29/11: Further literature research suggests that my SQR may be equivalent to the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) of others/wlm
The EEMU Chronicles (Continued)
A New ‘Twist” on Strings and Super-Strings
William L. Mansker, Ph.D.
August 4, 2011
An alternative quantum string hypothesis is proposed in which ‘string’ constructs are visualized as analogous (albeit, on a much-finer, non-detectable scale) to wire rope structures. [Readers, please keep in mind that the writer of this narrative possesses a vivid, but lucid, imagination that is based in the scientific methodology and fueled by analogy with observable phenomena!. The writer adheres to the recapitulation theory that ”ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”, and thereby, on a much grander scale, nature subtlely provides us with the observational and conceptual tools we need to understand our universe.
The reader is referred to the accompanying figures that describe the analogical “rope construction” methodology and a visualization of the hypothesis.
The hypothesis proposes that a hierarchical and interactive string complexity evolves from a matrix of basic gluon and graviton strings (i.e., the ‘wires’ in rope parlance) possessing extremely high energies (ca. 10x120 erg/cc). Energetic interactions and vibrational harmonics (including constructive and destructive interference at the quantum wave/probability level) among individual strings (perhaps gluon-graviton interactions) initializes the formation of quarks (i.e. the ‘strands’ in rope parlance). Quarks are the initial quantum “twist” of individual string interactions. Once twisted into strands, quarks are relatively ‘stabilized’ within the residual gluon-graviton matrix, but they also remain (symbiotically?) interactive with the gluon-graviton strings. Quarks represent the initial components for potential mass creation (i.e., virtual particles).
Further interaction with gluon-graviton string energies causally promotes quark-quark pairing interactions with a resultant slight net energy loss – ‘the energy of the parts is greater than that of the whole (quark-pair)’. The resultant energy loss is resorbed into the gluon-graviton matrix. Experiencing such an energy fluctuation, the quark-pair is primed for virtual massive particle formation. If given an extra-energy ‘kick’ (probability, again) from the gluon-matrix, the quark-pair disintegrates and returns to the gluon-matrix. If, on the other hand, the quark-pairing temporally persists, further energy loss occurs, or more complex quarkal ‘twisting’ ensues, a higher-order “rope” (e.g., Higgs Boson?) may form, or the virtual particle may simply become a ‘lighter-mass’, ‘permanent resident’ (i.e., proton, neutron, etc) massive particle in our observable part of the universe. Once a permanent (i.e., ‘locked-into’ a much lower energy environ - ca. 10x60 erg/cc) massive particle, standard (at least as we currently understand our physical laws) processes govern the remainder of the particle’s history.
The ultimate fate of the now-massive particle may be a return to the gluon-graviton matrix via black holes.
Epilogue: Now we may know (ref: current string theories) where all those “extra dimensions” are hiding!
SINGLE-SLIT “DIFFRACTION” PROCESS
William L. Mansker, Ph.D.
July 15, 2011
The attached Figures 1-6 visually explain how diffraction (actually refraction) via a single-slit (ref. Young) configuration likely occurs. Applying this concept to the double-slit experimental configuration, one can readily understand the results of the experiment.
In the single-slit visualization presented herein, a source beam (e.g., electrons, photons, etc.) is directed to the slit design. Note: within the beam source there may be temporal and constructive variations in xyz beam shape and projection characteristics (i.e., fluctuations in the beam configuration are constrained by the source design and controls.). Slit design is also constrained by machining technologies and may show irregularities. Thereby, the fine-ness of the slit design is variable within these constraints. The “ideal” slit machination would provide for uniformity of the slit edges and a gradual thinning to a zero thickness.
The process described herein visualizes an interaction of the source beam with the slit edges that actually refracts that portion of the beam impinging upon the slit edge. This beam-matter interaction takes place within a definable “refraction volume” in the thinner portions of the slit edge. Regardless of the source (electrons or photons, or ions), the source beam will interact with the matter comprising the thin slit edge. This interaction takes place on an atomic level. Mass within the slit edges are of a thinness that allows energetic interactions with the source beam. As the edge thickens, away from the slit opening, these interactions will become insignificant (opaque due to mass thickness). For example, if the slit edge is (ideally) only one atom thick, the beam will greatly energize that thin portion of the slit edge. This energetic interaction will result in either deflection of the source beam, or activation to a higher energy level of the atom’s outer electrons. If the latter occurs, we could expect a re-emission of energy as the atom’s electron(s) resume their normal state. Energetic emission may initiate photons of different (measureable?) energy levels or frequencies than that of the source beam.
The net effect is either source beam deflection or a decrease in beam photon energies (e.g., longer wavelength), or energetic re-emission (via atomic interactions) of secondary photons. If the latter occurs, such secondary photons may exhibit variations in energy levels, frequency, or wavelength relative to the source beam.
Application of the concept to the double-slit experiment
It is a logical extension of the concept to envision that, in the double-slit experiment, the resultant (refracted) beams from two closely-separated slits will interact with each other and produce similar, if not identical, “diffraction” pattern results, such as have been historically observed.
Some intriguing things to explore/resolve/verify:
1. Resolution of the particle/wave duality of electromagnetic phenomenon?
2. Prediction and verification of energy quanta values?
3. Is the process attributable simply to micro-scale photoelectric effects/interactions?
W. L. Mansker’s Philosophical Observations and Opinions
What commonalities do God and the subquantum share? Comparing religion and science.
1. Neither can be physically seen or directly detected *
2. Neither can be proven implicitly to exist
3. Both are inferred from belief systems
- God is inferred from spiritual, metaphysical constructs
- Subquantum is inferred from theoretical, mathematical constructs
4. Religion and science are not, by definition or realization, mutually exclusive
5. Religion and science both converge toward metaphysics
Metaphysics -a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
Epistomology-the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
Religion-The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Science-a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
God-a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
Subquantum- (sic, existing at subplanckian scales)-in linear measure, distances less than 1.616252×10−35 meters (Planck Length). At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory break down and become inadequate.
* (Caveat – We actually may be on the cusp of detecting the subquantum via super colliders and
Casimir Effect research)
Trying Again: Understanding the Equilibrium Evaporative Model of the Universe (EEMU Hypothesis)
Reader Ref: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/
©W. L. Mansker, Ph.D. 6/28/13
I am simply a lowly (in the eyes of modern theoretical physicists) Ph.D. geologist. However, I am a trained observer and have a nominal skill in visualizing processes extant to those observations. I am not a mathematician, nor am I any good at maths. I leave mathematical proofs (or lack thereof) regarding the viability of the EEMU Hypothesis to those more skilled in mathematics.
I feel relatively secure with my belief in the EEMU Hypothesis. However, there are aspects of the hypothesis that are difficult (for me!) to grasp, or visualize. So, by writing, I hope to clear my brain of the extraneous clutter and improve my visualization skills. The following diatribe describes how I think it (EEMU) works.
My Conceptual Rendering of the “Universe”
I will start by describing my concept of the universe. The universe is the whole enchilada - everything. The universe includes both observable phenomena and unobservable phenomena.
The former (observable) is easy (ier). It is what I refer to as Material Reality, or MR, and I think most of us would agree that MR is the physical (measurable, detectible) ‘stuff’ of our reality that we readily observe. We scientists can poke, prod, or otherwise interact with MR and thus increase our knowledge and understanding of its qualities and we, in general, can detect and measure the apparent values of these qualities’ quantitative aspects.
The latter (not directly observable) is more difficult because we encounter problems when we try to look-at stuff that we suspect is real but can’t really see (or measure). We conjure complex mathematics to describe this stuff and, based on these maths, we (scientists) attempt to design experiments that will provide predictive observations and validate the maths. This ‘stuff’ resides primarily within the spooky quantum or subquantum realm. My hypothesis calls this the Subquantum Reality, or SQR.
Quantum is that somewhat fuzzy line separating the directly observable from the unobservable. I say ‘fuzzy’ because although there are discrete, definable, quantizable qualities of reality (e.g., mass etc.) that behave in predictable and repeatable fashions
(by confirmatory experimentation) when we do our ‘poking and prodding’. Other qualities are fuzzy because, while they offer-up predictive and quantizable qualities, we still do not understand how these qualities work.
For example ‘gravity’ – we routinely use mathematics to measure and predict the effects of gravity, but we haven’t quite yet figured-out exactly where gravity originates and how it is manifest in the overall scheme of theoretical physics. Consequently, we make our best-guesses and reference gravity to ‘curved space-time’ (Einstein), elusive gravitons, and other mathematical constructs. Likewise we can also consider magnetism, virtual photons. strings, M-branes, black holes, etc., and . . . the Big Bang itself
On the other smaller, (finer) side of the ‘fuzzy’ quantum line everything gets even more fuzzy and really behaves (we think!) strangely. This is because we are now ‘entering the Twilight Zone’ of theoretical physics. At scales less than the Planck Length (~ 1.6 x 10^-34 meters ; or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 meters, more or less!), we really have a difficult time making accurate and repeatable measurements because our instruments and detectors are unable to ‘see’ things on that scale. We ‘detect’ stuff only because the ‘stuff’ interacts with our detectors; if there is no perceptible interaction, there is no detection. [Note: This is similar, by analogy, to our sense of vision in which our eyes are most sensitive to the visible light spectrum; albeit, we do kind of sense a bit of the peripheral infrared and low-ultraviolet parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.] Basically, everything that is smaller than the Planck Length is virtually undetectable. Everything smaller that the Planck Length is like that – fuzzy.
I am reminded of the story about the three blind men who were trying to describe an elephant. Each of the men grasped only one different part of the elephant (i.e, trunk, tail, foot, tusk, etc.) and their subjective descriptions of ‘what an elephant is’ were vastly different, depending upon their separate tactile ‘observations’ Scientists delving into the subquantum realm are somewhat like the three blind men and it is only by mathematical predictive modeling and improving experimental designs that we come to consensus regarding the nature of the subquantum.
The Simplified EEMU Hypothesis
In summary: There is this subquantum stuff called SQR that pervades the entire universe and SQR is the energetic source from which all MR is derived.
Simple enough, but the ’mechanistic devil is in the details’ which I will attempt to explain. Bear in mind that much, if not all, of this, is but my conjecture. Proponents of the Standard Model (most theoretical physicists) will either cringe, berate, or try to
disprove these musings, or otherwise try to kill the messenger. A few may find the discussions enlightening or consistent with their own ideas.
O.K., here goes . . . .
Subquantal Reality, or SQR; and Material Reality , or MR
SQR is the all-pervading, very highly-energetic fabric (or matrix) that is part of, and permeates our observable, material reality (MR). SQR existed prior to formation of MR, is the source of all MR, and continues (as we speak!) to create more MR. Together they comprise our entire universe.
SQR is subquantum by its nature and by my definition. Although SQR also permeates all aspects of MR, SQR only weakly interacts with MR, such that we have a really difficult time even proving its existence because of the ‘detection’ problem (discussed above). However, most modern theoretical physicists do admit that subquantum ‘stuff’ exists . . . and we scientists just argue considerably over just what it is and what are its components.
It is my conjecture is that SQR is the fundamental milieu within which MR exists. This presumes that SQR pre-dates the first appearance of MR. SQR may be infinite in volumetric extent, but probably has an upper limit to the total energy contained within it – maybe not.
SQR transforms to MR in a continuous series of processes involving intermediate virtual photons, quarks, and other fuzzy subquantum ‘critters’ (e.g., strings?). SQR is field only albeit of an enormous energy. MR is derived from SQR and is essentially a mix of mass and field products. We may simplify this discussion by assuming all of the mass in MR is ‘at rest’ (actually, it is not!). Using this simplification, we can apply Einstein’s renowned equation E=mc^2 (^2 denotes the exponent ‘squared’, or c x c). This famous equation is an “equivalence relationship” meaning that E (energy) is equal to mass times the speed of light squared . Sensu stricto (in the strictest sense), Since this is an equivalence relationship, a quantity of mass can be converted (ideally) to a quantity of energy (e.g., atomic energy, bombs, etc.). The reverse is also true; a quantity of energy can (theoretically) be converted to a quantity of mass.
Based on my conjecture that all MR is produced by transformation of SQR, it is a relatively simple calculation to estimate that quantity of energy ‘required’ to produce all of the mass in MR. The total mass (both luminous matter AND dark matter) of the observable universe(MR) has been estimated (by others) to be about 3.0 x 10^55 grams (give or take a few grams! ß humor here). Plugging this mass into Einstein’s equivalence relationship and solving for E yields a mass-equivalent total energy of 1.7 x 10^88 electron volts (eV). That equals about 2.7 x 10^69 Joules for you physicists, and 6.51 x 10^59 tons of TNT for you rock quarry blasters! Needless to say, that’s one hell of a lot of energy! As the late Carl Sagan might have said, “billions and billions and billions . . . “ etc.
And that’s how much SQR energy that is required to account for all of the current mass in MR. In my earlier writings I have estimated that the total energy available in SQR (per cubic centimeter!) is 6.2 x 10^131 eV. So, to conclude this part of the discussion: “Yes Virginia, there is an expanding (MR) universe and no, It ain’t done yet!” [Note: Someone please check my math!]
The Overall EEMU Hypothesis ‘Model’
There exists this very highly-energetic subquantum fabric, energy matrix, or field (SQR) that permeates the universe and is a precursor to, and coeval with, the observable part of the universe (MR). The total energy of SQR is staggering to the human mind; only a very minor fraction of SQR energy has, so far, transformed to matter in MR. The transformational mechanism is relatively simple: Energy (SQR) à subquantum virtual particles à physical particles à mass+fields (MR) [Note: I am sure that mathematicians can make this more complicated, in detail].
EEMU in the Grand Universal Scheme
The MR portion of universe ‘appears’ to us human observers to be expanding. Theoretical physicists postulate that the universe is not actually expanding into anything, but rather, that ‘space’ itself is continuously expanding . . . at an accelerating rate, no less. Thus, what we observe is this expansion of space at every point in space simultaneously.
My intellectual curiosity has focused on the EEMU Hypothesis over the last twenty-five years, or so, primarily because I am (like most scientists) biased toward believing that MY hypothesis is correct. (Senility will surely follow soon!). I also believe that, in the final analysis, ALL things somehow fit together in the grand scheme of the universe – from the subquantum to the edge (if any) of the universe. I am limited by my mental capacity (again, if any!) to visualize a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or a Theory of Everything (TOE), so don’t look for those here.
So, just how does the EEMU Hypothesis ‘fit’ into the ‘grand scheme’?
Here goes . . . again!
I have already discussed (above) how I envision the SQR à MR transformational mechanisms work at or near the subquantum scale. Now let’s turn-around and view this process on a cosmological scale. How does the SQR à MR transformation process fit with our observations? Just how is the universe ‘expanding’?
We’ll start by envisioning the transformation as occurring everywhere in the entire universe (both SQR and MR) all the time, not unlike our interpretations of expansion of space (above). At all ‘points’ within the universe, the transformation is ongoing. Visualize, first, one infinitesimally small volume of SQR blossoming forth in a shower of MR particles. Now, enlarge this view to encompass all these SQR ‘infinitesimals’ blossoming simultaneously. Get the picture? Does this visualization imbue a feeling of expansion and growth of MR? Hold on . . . There are more complex visualizations coming!
So, is the universe actually expanding? Yes, I believe so, and I believe the MR portion of the universe is expanding . . . and into ‘something’! That ‘something’ is a subtle, ever-so-slight net negative-pressure spatial environment created at the expense (conversion loss) of SQR energy to MR. It is as if there is a certain equilibrium, static ‘energy-pressure’ exerted by SQR. When the SQR à MR transformations occur, there is a net decrease in the overall (average) SQR energy-pressure (energy density), which is amenable to a net vacuum creation (?) concomitant with production of massive particles in MR.
So, two things are going on simultaneously in the SQR à MR transformation. Mass density in MR, per unit ‘vacuum volume’ is increasing at the expense of a net energy density decrease in SQR. The net effect of the transformations is to continuously ‘create’ mass (MR) from energy (SQR) that ‘fills’, or expands into, a void (vacuum) simultaneously created by the transformation.
Geez! . . . you say . . . This guy is really off-his-rocker! Maybe so.
So, how does this blend with our ‘apparent’ observations of expansion of the universe? Simplest explanation: The MR portion of the universe IS expanding into a transition zone created by the SQR à MR transformation. “But . . . but . . . what about the Big Bang? What about the Standard Model?”
The Big Bang may, or may not, have occurred. Such an event(s) is allowed by the EEMU Hypothesis – but NOT required. Assuredly (I think) some kind of ‘event’ probably ‘triggered the initial SQR à MR process. But that triggering event may have been just a probabilistic (ala Heisenberg) ‘pin-prick’ or irregularity in the SQR energy fabric from whence the SQR à MR cascade ensued, and continues. Expansion? Yes! But the expansion is nothing more complex than production of mass rushing to keep pace with (trend toward equilibrium), and try to fill, a transformative, reactional energy depression. Ergo, MR is progressively expanding toward a ubiquitous ‘front’ represented by the SQR à MR transformations. So, what appears to us humans to be an accelerating expansion of space is actually true (I again think), although it could also be interpreted as MR essentially ‘chasing’ the reaction front(s) caused by the
transformations. I still have a hard time visualizing what this would look like (other than an expansion of MR), but I’ve created some graphical renderings that I can provide to interested readers.
Some Added Notes:
The ‘arrow-of-time’ seems, to us, to run in one direction (toward the future). The popular belief is also that entropy increases (and ordered-energy decreases) with time. For the final visualization, relax and try to (intellectually) examine the energy vs entropy tendencies for the SQR à MR transformational process. It works for me!
And how about that shadowy Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)? The CMBR has traditionally been interpreted as a ‘left-over’ from the Big Bang . . . the final thermal vestiges of a cooling and expanding universe. I am inclined, rather, to view the formation of CMBR as a continuous and feeble (compared to Big Bang energetics) byproduct of thermal emanation from the SQR à MR process. This is an alternative interpretation of why the CMBR appears so isotropic throughout the observable universe. Actually, CMBR is slightly anisotropic, which has been interpreted by others as a kind of polarization of the CMBR. I suggest that the anisotropy may be due to weak SQR source directionality.
And, what about c, the speed of light? The speed of light is a curious thing. It is postulated (and generally accepted) that nothing in our observable universe can travel at velocities exceeding c (speed of light in a vacuum - 299,792,458 meters/second; 670,616,629 miles/hour; 186,000 miles/second). Not only that, but nothing possessing mass can even reach the speed of light! The exception to this is light photons, of course since they travel at c, but then again, they supposedly possess no mass. By the way, we have been able (in super-colliders) to accelerate protons and other tiny atomic critters to about 0.997 c. I have speculated in earlier writings that I believe c is a ‘magical lower limit’ (my terminology!) within SQR, assuming that c even applies to a space-less, time-less energy field!. If and when energetic actions within SQR decrease to c, then the SQR à MR process is initiated. So, c is the upper velocity limit in MR, but it is the lower limit in SQR. MR mass is forever constrained to subluminal conditions, whereas SQR may be superluminal
So now, let’s visit black holes. Black holes (BH) are postulated to be the final gravitational resting place for all mass – and fortunately for us, there are few in our galactic vicinity. But black holes may be our ticket out of MR (if that is the desired goal). What happens in a localized gravitational environ that is so intense that even light cannot escape from it? The BH phenomenon continues to attract extraneous mass (and light, I suppose), increasing further its gravitational potential. One might ask: What happens to the ‘mass’ residing within a BH? Most theoretical physicists postulate
that the BH simply ‘evaporates’ (via Hawking radiation, or other processes). I speculate that what takes-place in a BH is that mass (and light, I suppose) becomes increasingly compressed to the physical point that mass (as such) can no longer exist. Mass is compressed to its subatomic constituents (e.g., protons, neutrons, etc.) which are then further gravitationally-squeezed until these also can no longer exist; yielding-up their vital constituents (e.g., quarks, gluons, etc.). And then what? By this ‘time’ everything has been squeezed to the point where the constituents are converted to energy densities on par with those of SQR. Black holes, then, may be the ultimate and local, but sparse, recyclers of of MR à SQR. Do we now want to further speculate about the nature of ‘White Holes’? . . . not at this juncture.
And that, folks, is the EEMU Hypothesis in a nutshell! Thanks for reading; comments pro and con are welcomed.
William L. Mansker, Ph.D.
Thoughts on SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
From an OOB (Out-Of-the-Box) Perspective
W. L. Mansker, Ph.D. 6/24/13
[Caveat: These are NOT new or necessarily original ideas!]
Like many others who are stalwart believers in extraterrestrial intelligence (EI), I have often wondered how and from what perspective, or vantage point, other EI’s might try to communicate (or actually may be communicating) with us.
The current SETI program is, from our perspective and current understanding of physics, how we believe that EI’s might exchange communicative interactions with us. Of course, this idea presumes more basic foundations - that EI’s exist . . . . that EI’s experience the same intellectual curiosity and wonderment regarding whether other EI’s (e.g., US!) even exist, . . . and, from THEIR perspective, knowledge-base, and developmental evolution, how (or on what scientific basis) would they design a workable communication system?
Well, for all of the meritorious dedication and worthwhile intent of the SETI program, that I heartily endorse, we are biased! We humans have developed a deep understanding of our reality based on theoretical and applied physics derived from our experiential reality. This understanding is based on observation, experimentation, and verification (or rejection!) of our original explanatory hypotheses. This methodology is called the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is most likely universally applicable to interpreting one’s (i.e., all EI’s) observations and developing logical extensions that obey derived physical laws. We trust the Scientific Method to be an infallible key to understanding our experiential realities. I am sure that all OTHER EI’s would come to the same conclusion(s), based on their ‘experiential reality’.
But, consider for a moment (for the purposes of this diatribe) that other extant EI’s DO experience and understand their ‘reality’ from THEIR experiential perspective. They will observe, experiment, and verify their hypotheses – and thereby will develop natural ‘physical laws’ and logical extensions and applications that are applicable to their existence – from their experiential perspective.
To reiterate, what I am getting-at-here is the following. ALL EI’s develop and apply natural laws to understand and explain the behaviors and interactions of their respective experiential environments, based on their ‘natural laws’. While I agree that all natural physical laws apply equally and are unchanging (at least within our frame of repeatable detection or measurements), is it not possible . . . . even probable . . ., that our understanding of physical laws is limited by our verifiable observations and logical extensions (including extensions by mathematical logic)? Such a supposition infers that other EI’s likely share those same limitations, perhaps more or perhaps less, depending upon their (likewise, our own) level of intelligence, understanding of applicable physics, and capabilities. In other words, there likely exist physical laws or extensions - unbeknownst to us, or operating at scales not detectible or measureable by us - that indicate interactions not fully describable by our own (known) natural laws or applications thereof. A few historical technological examples from our own developing, progressive knowledge base (via mostly the precepts (or precursors) of the Scientific Method) are useful to recall in this regard
Manned flight in air and in space, lasers, computers, quantum theory and mechanics, stem cells, etc.; Ideas prosthelytized/hypothesized by: Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Werner, Einstein, Hawking, etc. . . . .
There are myriad other examples!
A well-known philosophical conundrum states: “There is nothing new under the sun”. This is probably true; however, “There ARE new things ‘under the sun’ that we have yet to discover, observe, detect, measure, verify, and utilize (sic)”.
OK, now back to SETI . . . . and here is my OOB, ‘what-if’, hypothetical scenario.
Setting the Stage:
An EI suspects that there may be another EI (or EI’s) extant in the universe. This particular (or peculiar?) EI explorer exists at a subplankian scale. [Notes: We do not know if such existence is even possible . . . from OUR perspective . . . but bear with me! . . .we DO know that something exists at this scale, even though this ‘something’ may not be mass-based (as we know it) and it may be nothing more than an all pervasive (and elusive) energy; commonly referred to as Zero-Point Energy (ZPE). For simplicity here, I am not eliciting, or invoking (except for the following ‘staged’ scenario), the more elusive stuff called ‘dark energy’ or ‘dark mass’ - which in the final analysis, may actually apply.]
Subplanckian refers to ‘stuff’ (not necessarily quantizable energy or mass). That exists at a physical scale that is less than the Planck Length (1 planck length = 1.61619926 × 10-35 meters), or what I refer to as “subquantum”
Assume then, that our ‘EI seeker- of-other-EI’s’ resides within the subquantum (subplanckian) realm; and again remember, we cannot truly (from our perspective) conceive of what or how intelligent actions could occur in such a milieu. So, let’s OOB-speculate!
Our alien, intelligent subquantum EI seeker might well begin his search by pointing his hypothetical subquantum antennae, hypothetically ‘skyward’ and surfing ‘his’ common subquantum communication channels. As a reminder, our EI seeker is subquantum; therefore, ALL of his actions . . . . ALL of his processes . . . . . ALL of his equipment . . . ALL of his ‘physical laws’ are also subquantum by agreed-definition.
How then, is our industrious subquantum EI to convince his scientific companions that he has designed a communications system that will (very likely), detect, perhaps even establish two-way communications with other possible EI’s? Speaking over his companions’ hoots, guffaws, and snickery-ridicule, he engages in his hypothetical diatribe, to wit, the following staged scenario:
“First, I will assume that all other EI’s, if extant, are similar to us in most respects. Their structural forms and mental intellect are likewise similar to us” (Note: hypothetically, remember; these EI’s don’t realize that, by comparison to us, they are subquantum.and ‘mass-less’!; they perceive that they are “normal;”) “Furthermore, they exist in a similar (sic, subquantum) environment and they must surely obey the same physical laws as we do.”
“We began our preliminary research by monitoring common communications channels that originate from outside ourselves. But, we soon discovered a ‘glitch’ in our design. Since we, as a species, are constructed of higher-ordered harmonics of those same frequencies, selective filtration of those interfering harmonics proved insurmountable. It would be of little intellectual utility to seek those harmonics of which we ourselves are a part.”
“One of our group then brilliantly suggested that perhaps we should shift our focus to actually utilize suspected undertones (harmonics greater than 1). These lower-order harmonics of our fundamental frequencies are the current focus of our search. These lower-order harmonics are suspected of being ubiquitous throughout our known universe, but they are transient and until now a poorly-understood phenomenon. We don’t actually sense or detect them directly; but rather, by predicting subtle, inferential interactions with our existing frequencies. We have long observed that these lower-order harmonics exhibit statistically probabilistic frequency and wavelength shifts that have no apparent directed origins. We were wrong!.”
“Our research project is now known as SETI (Search for External or Transient Intelligence). Our exciting preliminary experimental findings, based on successive, exhaustive, recursive examination of our data indicate that these lower-order harmonics are indeed ubiquitous, but they are associated with definable transformations of our universal energy flux . . . to an entirely different form of existence! Whereas our known universe is almost universally repulsive, this new discovery intimates a transitional form that is dominated by an attractive quality, we have tentatively termed this phenomenon as a kind of ‘dark energy’ that intimately, and continuously derives from our own energy flux and transforms via discrete interactive actions to ‘dark energy’ .”
“I will now present our observational findings in greater depth, offer the scientific bases for our data interpretations, suggest future research modifications, and finally, entertain questions and alternative interpretations . .”
“SETI listens to frequencies between 1420 (the Hydrogen molecule) and 1662 (the hydroxyl molecule) – (sic, or what is known as the “Water Hole” bandwidth). This is to say that an intelligent civilization would recognize these frequencies and would probably be monitoring them a(s) well. The cosmos is full of these frequencies and a slight deviation in the regular pulsing of these frequencies would be noticed by anyone who is scanning the skies.”
(Ref. Quote Sam Farina III at: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/At_what_frequency_does_SETI_listen_at)
Regarding the above quotation (SETI monitoring frequencies); If I were the inquiring EI civilization, I would initially rather scan for outside, incoming frequencies transmitted at or near the same frequency ranges that were dominant in my preferred mode of communication. Predicting that this scenario would quickly fail, due to inherent earth-borne interferences and nearby off-earth sources, I would reassess the project to explore extraordinary modes of possible communications, and communicative, interactive exchange media. One such possible alternative could include closer scrutiny of quantum and subquantum (EM energetics only) source interactions with our observable universe.
We scientists have managed, so far, to develop very high frequency oscillators (over 300 GHz) and current solid-state high frequency oscillator designs are approaching the terahertz (1000 GHz) range. We are, yet, nowhere close to developing harmonic oscillators capable of interacting with frequencies at the subquantum level (i.e., Planck Frequency = ~1x10^+36 GHz = 1x10^33 THz). But we may already have an interactive ‘detector’ for monitoring such high frequencies. It is related to matter-energy interactions involving the Casimir Effect (CE).
Noteworthy, would be, a more in-depth examination of the CE, and yet undiscovered, related quantum and subquantum phenomena, to include exploration of optimum CE interactions (e.g., wavelengths, frequencies, energies, new and tunable CE detectors, etc.) and a search for possible directed modulation of CE (. . . by whom? . . . other EI’s, or even, perhaps. . . . (woo-woo!) the Intelligent Designer of the universe),
Author’s final note: This essay started-out to be an OOB critique of SETI-like adventures. However, it turned-out to be a work of fiction (perhaps!). The author assumes full responsibility for any misinterpretations of existing information and the ideas presented herein. Happy EI hunting!