Some Thoughts on the composition of the Universe
By Vincent Langfield January 17, 2001
Update June 18, 2001
I propose the following explanation of how the universe is constructed and how this concept explains many of the phenomena that we observe and for which we have no other explanation. First let us reflect on the mater of scale. For our purposes there are three scales of objects in the universe as it is commonly defined. These are the 1. Macro scale i.e. objects larger than the planets and up to the size of the knowable universe 2. The human scale i.e. objects in the size range from planets down to microbes, and lastly the 3. The micro range, being objects between microbes and subatomic particles. These three scales have been observed by humans and are well documented. There is however, no evidence that other scales both larger and smaller than the three above do not exist. Further: I suggest that logic and reason argue for the existence of scales both above and below these three which we know by measurement and direct observation. The logic being that there is no reason to assume, with out supporting evidence, that a series, any series, is only three units [or n units] in length and further that we just happen to be included at the center of said series. [1 through 3 above] Also if we state that the series concept is an artificial construct and not germane to the discussion then I say that the logic still applies as we are approximately, by mass, in the center of the range of objects known to us. We know of no objects larger than the universe nor do we know of any objects smaller than the subatomic debris of collisions in our labs. This is true simply because we have not the ability to see into either of the scales adjoining the three we are aware of. Again it would be extremely unlikely that we be positioned at the center of all things and logic demands other possibilities. Consider that it was not long ago that we were aware of only the human scale. Perhaps it is now time to expand our knowledge again?
Given the above, what lies above and below? What can we ever know of these things?
I propose that some safe assumptions can be made based on the properties that we observe in the three scales that we are aware of.
First. On average, the larger an object is the slower it moves. Conversely the smaller a particle is the faster it moves.
Second. The larger an object is the fewer of them exist. Again conversely the smaller an object is the more numerous it becomes.
Third. The larger objects are constructed from the material of the smaller objects.
Fourth. All of the properties of the smaller or larger objects are not predictable without direct observation, that is the properties of one group can only be partially deduced from the study of other groups.
Fifth. The properties of a smaller group are the direct cause of the properties of the larger group and all larger groups.
Six. Most of the space on all three scales that we are now aware of is empty.
Seven. All phenomena and properties of the larger group are explained by the properties of the smaller group.
Eight. A knowledge of the smaller group tells us less about the larger than the reverse.
Nine. The reverse of eight, what we know about the larger tells us many of the properties of the smaller.
Ten. The speed of light is significant on many levels i.e. [e=mc2].
After listing the above assumptions we will list some phenomena that we observe but as yet cannot explain.
1. Why is the speed of light a limit?
2. Why does an accelerating object gain mass and shorten as it gets near the speed of light?
3. Why the duality of photons, that is, particle and wave?
4. Why does a photon, when split, have the ability to instantaneously communicate with its other half apparently over any distance?
5. Why does the universe appear to be expanding?
6. Why does is this expansion appear to be accelerating?
7. What is gravity?
8. Why is the universe so flat?
9. What is the dark matter if any?
10. What is energy?
11. What is an electron?
12. Where does the energy for sub atomic acceleration [i.e. Brownian motion] come from?
13. What is Magnetism?
.
Basing my comments on the above statements I will attempt to speculate on some of the properties of the lower scale. That is the scale below the micro range. I will call it the sub micro range of existence.
. I propose that one of the primary components of the sm [sub micro] range is a particle[a-] that is the building block of the electron [and probably all sub atomic particles]. I propose that its properties are as follows. Mass a- = e /c cubed, Velocity a- = [186,000^2 miles/second]. An electron in our universe is composed of the annihilation of very large numbers of a- particles on a continuous basis, streaming in from all directions and colliding at e [an electron] and other particles. In fact I propose just that number [a- energy . velocity ^2 = e] of a- particles streaming in to collide at the location we know as an electron. The quantity of a- particles in the vicinity of the destination will be very high and the ability of the a- particles to adjust their trajectory for a collision at the assigned destination will result in a particle existing as a point object only at the temperature of absolute zero, further, the ability to adjust the trajectory of the a- particles to the area of the sub atomic particle destination imposes the speed of light limit on the universe of our present perception. All temperatures above absolute zero produce a smearing of the impact zone and hence the cause of the uncertainty principle and possibly wave / particle duality of the electron. This suggests one test for the hypothesis, the loss of the wave function or reduction in uncertainty at absolute zero. This also is an explanation for Brownian motion. That is, the irregularities in the impact location of a- cause the constant motion of sub atomic particles. Again this explanation constitutes proof of this proposal.
Energy can be explained by using the premise that the collision point for the a- particles becomes more smeared out as the temperature rises and that the a- particles that miss their destination become energy. That is, all a- particles that miss their assigned destination are no longer necessary because of the shared space with another nucleon became energy. They [a-] then coalesce into photons and other electromagnetic radiation and begin their journey through space. Mater converted into energy results when the destination point for a quantity of a- particles is permanently disrupted or eliminated. [I speculate that e=mc2 corresponds directly with the collision rate of c2 a- particles / second?]
We need to explore the possibility that the “background microwave radiation” is the face of the source of the a- particles and as such explain the amazing uniformity that this source exhibits.
Conversely, these same photons, when sufficiently confined will re-find a convergence point and become matter. As these photons are composed of immense numbers of a- particles, they exhibit the observed properties of waves and particles at the same time. The wave function can be explained by the photon’s propagation through the medium of the flux of a- that fills the entire knowable universe. That is all of the a- particles on their way to their individual collision points at their assigned sub atomic particle. In order to experience a speed variation in light as it moves through the a- medium we require an environment where the gradient and directionality of the a- flow is concentrated sufficiently to give direction to the light. [Gravity is caused by this same process.]. It will hold for a relatively homogenous a- flux [no change in c.] With the possibly of speeds exceeding the speed of light near or inside the event horizon at black holes.
The accelerating expansion of the universe is explained by stating the following. On the premise that the observable universe is finite in volume and that the source of the a- particles is substantially larger than the observable universe. This being the case, the momentum imparted to the micro particles, by the a- particles, would trend to drive the observable universe to fill the volume of the source of the a- particles. This would result in a continuous acceleration on all components of the observable universe away from each other, just as our studies indicate is happening. This observation would also dictate that the universe is flat. A condition that we are finding to be true and a proof of this concept. Also the universe will be accelerating the rate of expansion, apparently a fact judging by recent reports. This constitutes a proof of this concept.
Time is relative directly to mass. This explains the accumulation of mass as an object accelerates and the coincident slowing of time. Objects gain mass as they accelerate because the rate of collisions with a- particles flux increases as speed increases. The accelerating objects encountering more a- particles as its speed increases cause this. Also it probably interacts with more of the a- particles that it encounters as the relative speed of the collisions increase [approaching 100% +/- at c]. Also the effect of foreshortening is explained by the fact that most impacts occur at the leading edge of the accelerating object’s individual sub atomic particles. An additional effect is that possibly the a- particles that compose the accelerating object are forced to curve their paths more and more as their target object accelerates. This curving could violate laws in the sm that we know nothing about and consequently dissipate energy to the extent dictated by Einstein’s predictions.
Some of the other effects of the a- particle are…Gravity. As the a- particles are interactive with mater on a very limited basis, just enough in fact to create the effect of gravity as they pass through any and all intervening mater. I speculate that the a- flux acts as a neutral influence on micro particles. That is it balances its forces almost perfectly on moving or stationary particles. The net reaction being that the a- particles exhibit force only consistent with their path toward gravitationally more powerful objects. Just as we observe.
The speed of light is simply the terminal velocity of photons in a- particle flux in a vacuum. This is analogous to the speed of sound in air. Also the analogy applies to the Doppler shift. All other particles will exhibit correspondingly smaller terminal velocities in the a- particle flux. The velocity of a- particles is [186,000^2 miles/second] or around 1100 light years per second.
Some will say that this concept smacks of the ether and point to the proof that the ether doesn’t exist. However the speed of the a- particle is so high that the speed of the earth in the universe is such a small fraction of the speed of the a- flux that the difference could not be measured at the time of the experiment. It possibly can not be measured now. Nonetheless if the difference could be measured it would further prove the concept. [On the order of [186,000^2 miles/second]. Further, the ether was proposed as a passive medium and its effects were expected to mirror the atmosphere in that it would resist the passage of objects through itself. On the other hand the a- flux is dynamic and contributes to and probably causes the expansive and gravitational motion of all objects in the universe.
Red shift or the Doppler effect is entirely consistent with the wave carrying abilities of the a- flux.
Other possible effects of a- are. Light falling into a black hole will exceed the c as it will be traveling with basically coherent a- particles in extremely high quantities and its terminal velocity will be higher. However, we probably can not observe this phenomena as the returning radiation will be pushed back by these same a- particles when the terminal velocity [read escape velocity] equals (186,000^2) mi./sec. There is a possibility that the in-falling photons will surpass c just outside the event horizon. This would be firm evidence for this proposal. Further reflection suggests the possibility that the point where c is exceeded could define and confine the event horizon. One possible test for the concept would be to use it to determine our position in the universe relative to the source of a-. This would be possible if we were able to determine if there were any curvatures to the a- flux and thereby determine our position relative to the center of the universe. Possibly even get a hint as to the actual size of the universe. Further thought tells me that there can be no detectable curvature to the a- flux path if the statement about the resistance of objects to acceleration to the speed of light is true. [See “Time is relative to mass above.”]
There are jets of matter coming from the poles of black holes and they appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Possibly it is not an illusion and the speed of light is being exceeded because the material is exceeding the speed of light when it collides at the core and the direction is changed by the very high rate of spin of the core of the black hole, This hypothesis further supports the concept of a- and the submicro group .
Notes:
1. gravity decreases with the inverse square of the distance? The same for the quantity of a-.
2. Quarks and other subatomic particles are dislocated annihilation locations for the incoming a- particles. They exhibit the observed properties in their attempt to recombine into a single point or destination.
3. Magnetism / electric fields are composed of diverted streams of a- particles that return to the source. That source being the impact point [sub atomic particle] and not the original source of the a- particles. Hence like signs repel and opposite signs attract. That is: the streams from like signs collide and the streams from opposite signs combine. Electric currents are streams of a- particles diverted over longer periods of time and longer paths through material in one of our known scalars. They seek to return to their respective sources but possibly can substitute destinations under certain circumstances.
4. The fact of a constant stream of a- particles supplies an explanation for magnetism, or magnetic lines of force, being constant with no apparent energy source. That is: the stream of a- particles is a constant supply of energy and this constitutes another proof of the concept. Further we might observe that gravity waves are transmitted at about 1100 light years / second.
5. A basic premise of the theory is that all mater must consist of a constant expenditure of energy. That is energy is at all times consumed and or expended. Either as heat, light and motion, or as the maintenance of all mater. There is no solid mater. There is only the annihilation of a- particles and the attendant flows of the same. All mater is the manifestation of energy. Energy in our scalars is a diversion from the a- particle’s attempts to support mater.
6. The density of a- particles can be determined by the energy requirements for the existence of an electron and the energy equivalence of a- particles using [186,00^2 miles/second] as a velocity.
7. How the quantity of a- particles relates to the effects of electromagnetism and gravity.
8. Explore whether the weak and or strong nuclear force can be explained by the smearing of the impact points and the higher densities of oriented a- particles in the nucleus of an atom. The percentage of interaction of a- particles with other impact sites i.e. electrons and other particles. This property creates gravity. The fact that massive objects bend light is a proof of the existance of the a- particle and the author aknowlwdges the possibility of many particles in the sm scalar but for now will use a- to designate all particles that may exist in the sm scalar.
9. The source for the a- particle will be expanding at a rate that will exceed the expansion of the known universe. This is due to the conservation of momentum. That is, the source for the a- particles has to rebound from the action of sending the a- particles into the known universe. This rebounding may be attenuated or absorbed by the unknown mass or initial velocity or other unknown properties of the a- source. This makes the ultimate collision of the universe with the a- source a possibility?
10. Acceleration due to gravity is very consistent with my theory in that it is just that, acceleration, which implies, no states, that there is a steady energy input into the falling object. The quantity of particles increases as the impact point for them approaches and the path lines converge to some extent before impact. In a black hole the paths may converge to a point, that is, a singularity. This implies that the material falling into a black hole accelerates freely into the singularity albeit the overall universal flux of the a- particles remains in the volume of the black hole and has some effect concerning the speed of light speed limit. This effect can be observed when combined with the tremendous spin rate of the singularity. Logic demands that most if not all black holes spin and the conservation of momentum predicts an incredibly high spin rate. This combination will cause jets of mater to be ejected from the poles of the black hole. Where the necessary energy / momentum is provided by the combination of gravitation and spin to redirect the material to the poles at speeds exceeding that of light and therefor exceeding the escape velocity of the black hole.
Time is relative to mass, mass is relative to motion, motion is relative to time. The impact of the a- particles determines mass / time of the sub atomic particle and consequently the mass / time of all objects of which we are aware.
1. The universe could wink out at an implosion rate of 1100 light years per second if the a- particle source ended. All that we know or are aware of, including us would cease to exist instantly. There would be no warning possible and nothing; not even space or time or energy or ashes would persist after this the ultimate end of existance. Is this possible? We just don’t know but based on the premise that if an event is possible and doesn’t violate laws of the universe then it will happen. It’s just a question of when.
.
2. What if there were a hick-up or anomaly in the a- source? Would all that we know wink out and a new universe come into immediate existance? Or would there be utter compression with all a- particles converging at a point again. [ big bang revisited?]
3. This because the destinations for all a- particles ceased to exist at the moment of the interruption. The ultimate singularity and the perfect explanation for and description of the big bang. All of this would start over with the incoming a- particles coalescing into impact points and forming a universe all over again. All this initial expansion at a speed of [186,000^2 mi/sec]. However this new universe could be less energetic and be supplied with less expansion energy then the one we are in due to the expansion of the a- source that has transpired since the last big bang. This raises the question of the energy transmission characteristics of the a- particles. Do the particles loose energy over distance? Surely the quantity of a- particles per unit area would decrease and consequently the speed of light would decrease or at least change. This leads to the thought that the speed of light should be constantly changing as the a- particle flux thins with the expansion of the universe. If this is true will we be able to detect the change? If we can it would supply further proof of this concept. A thought about time relative to the sm scalar. Since time is relative to mass the sm. scalar could be only microseconds old in that scalar while being billions of years old in ours [c : 186,000^2 mi/sec ].
4. Thoughts on the duality of light: Let us suppose that a photon of light is actually a rather large, fuzzy ball of a- particles. This ball is oscillating and its surface is not crisp. Further its shape is unknown but roughly spherical. The speed of the individual a- particles is c squared so that they have plenty of time to move and change position during the transit of the photon. We will call it a photon as it contains the minimum number of a- particles consistent with the frequency exhibited. That is: the frequency is determined by the quantity of a- particles included in the photon. The higher the frequency the more a- particles included and consequently the higher the energy content. This statement also solves the energy transfer / frequency change conundrum in that the energy transfer involves a partial exchange of the a- particles thus reducing the frequency of the remaining photon. The photon travels at c in the universal a- flux [a vacuum] where it is transmitted as a wave. That is: it is composed of a- particles that transfer motion through the a- flux and continue to do so until the edge of the disturbance [I.e. photon] contacts an object that it interacts with. It then slows down and is transmitted through, reflects, or is absorbed either completely or by some fraction. Since all objects contain the flux of a- particles the transmission of the waveform through glass or any transparent medium is the same as in a vacuum albeit the wave speed is reduced by the properties of the transmitting medium. This is analogous to the wave characteristics of water. If the photon is reflected it again is similar to waves reflecting off solids in water. If however the wave encounters an object that absorbs light then the photon transfers all or at least a very large percentage of the a- particles at the initial point of contact. There is plenty of time for this to happen as the individual a- particles are moving at [186,000^2 mi/sec] and can easily find their way to the contact point. This because the a- particles fill the entire photon and are moving at a velocity that makes them enter an absorber within a very small period of time after contact. Think of a ball of mice. Hundreds of mice running around inside. This ball is rolling along at the square root of the speed of the mice. That is ten foot every twenty-one and a half days for the ball compared with speed of the mice at ten foot per second. Suddenly a hole appears and the mice see endless cheese through the hole. This hole is at least one mouse in diameter and possibly much more. All of the mice run out of the hole and since they are traveling at c times the speed of the ball they easily leave before the hole position relative to the cheese moves very much at all. The hole appears to be stationary. Now if the ball were invisible. It would appear to an observer that the mice exited a stationary hole since they are moving 186,000 times as fast as the now non existent ball. The particle property of light. Further, if the ball were hundreds of feet in diameter and totally invisible and further this mouse hole could appear at any point on the forward hemisphere, an observer would be completely bewildered by the sudden out pouring of mice at a point of contact with the cheese. He would not be able to predict the properties of the mouse ball. Specifically it’s size or it’s velocity or, to some extent, it’s direction.
5. The uncertainty principle is explained by the preceding. That is, we find the particle at the initial contact point with our absorber, but the wave or disturbance that the particle comes from is much larger and the location or velocity of a very ephemeral, low density, large wave [disturbance] is very hard to define. And in fact can only be estimated. In other words, the wavelength of the light, the mouseball diameter, is suddenly concentrated to a point at the contact point with the absorber, ergo the uncertainty. We cannot know the position of the mouseball, only that it was behind the particle we observed, it could have been centered on, or as much as 99.99999…% beyond and to any side of the point we observed. The size of the ultimate uncertainty is 2 x the wavelength minus a very small n [the size of the point we observe].
6. Black holes; It seems that if the speed of light were an absolute limit then the event horizon would be inside the surface of any black hole no mater it’s mass. Otherwise any object entering a black hole will exceed c before impacting the surface. My theory predicts that the high a- flux that is oriented toward it’s surface causes all material that enters a black hole to equal or exceed the speed of 186,000 mi./sec. at impact. However the speed of light will be greater than 186,000 mi./sec. as light from outside the event horizon gets closer to the surface. Just as an object impacting earth from outside the earth’s sphere of gravitational influence impacts at a minimum of 7 mi./sec. [earth’s escape velocity] plus the initial positive velocity [toward earth] the object had before entering earth’s gravitational sphere. Therefore the fact, if proven, that the event horizon is larger than the singularity inside proves that the speed c when related to neutrinos and larger is not an absolute but can and indeed must be larger than 186,000 mi./sec.[ up to a maximum of 2c?] Possibly the speed of light is a limit in the micro scale until the flux of a- particles exceeds a density and directionality combination to be determined in combination with the velocity c+.
7. Schrodinger’s cat: The Geiger counter is an agent of the observer and the cat either lives or dies at the moment of decay if any. The uncertainty is determined by the fuzzy diameter of the mouse ball be it a photon, electron, or atom. We should be able to calculate the diameter of the ball using the a- mass, speed, and a centripetal force constant for the temperature of the atomic particle or photon.
8. Side bar, would the outcome be predictable if the photon were at absolute zero?
9. A pair of particles ejected from the decay of a non-spinning particle has their spin at creation and any detector merely determines existing conditions. Conservation of spin requires that each particle’s spin is determined before the decay is completed. Again the uncertainty is limited to the diameter of the mouse ball. [That is the waveform]. The waveform of an object is very low density because it is extremely large in comparison to the resulting particle. It has a fuzzy surface or no surface at all, but rather thins out to nothing analogous to the atmosphere of the earth into space.
10. A wave can only become particles with a fixed energy level. This level is determined by the height of the third dimension of the wave. That is the wave has the two dimensions that we currently reference, peaks and troughs [frequency], and the third dimension that we now ignore which determines the actual quantity of photons that can be generated by the wave. The higher the third dimension the more energy a wave contains at the temperature dictated by that waveform. As the wave advances it spreads out and looses height in the third dimension. This allows the frequency to remain unchanged but the total energy to change as the wave progresses. It is as though the fuzzy mouse balls were stacked higher and higher and that they must all change to particles as the wave as absorbed. A defraction grating / interference pattern is possibly the interaction of the stack [the third dimension of light] being shuffled as they [the mouse balls] contact the absorber. A single photon must be nearly flat but can not be two-dimensional. A strictly two-dimensional wave transmits no energy and can not exist. As a wave spreads and looses energy, it first looses energy in the third dimension until it arrives at the minimum height consistent with the temperature [frequency] single photon possible. It then looses frequency [red shifts] then again looses height until it is necessary to drop frequency again. This continues until 0 degrees Kelvin, or infinite wavelength. This property is a definitive test for a partial history of the waveform under study. That is, if the waveform we are considering consists of a third dimension higher than the minimum determined by the energy available from the frequency drop at the quanta spaced temperature above it then its source emitted the waveform at the frequency presently observed. That is, it did not drop frequency. It seems that frequency must be quantum as well as energy. This would be a subject for study. The quantum characteristics of the frequency of light may not be observable at the scale {micro} but only at the lower scale [sm.] sub micro. The scale this paper proposes and reveals.
11. Since all particles are dynamic and maintained by the constant influx of a- particles, radioactive decay is explained by the large number of nucleons in close proximity to each other. And that the incoming a- particles interfere with each other and that the nucleons interfere with the incoming a- particle in ways that cause the amalgamation to become unstable. The instability will be predictable through an analysis of the nucleus’s geometry. The release of the energy of fission is the fraction of the a- particle flow that was being captured by intervening nucleons. Consider that at the separation of the nucleons [in an atom] that the incoming a- particles are so dense [numerous] that the interaction rate [of the a- particles with sub atomic particles other than their assigned targets] increases geometrically. This defines and explains the nuclear binding forces.
12. Since lighter elements have nucleons that are able to share perimeters and to some extent occupy the same space or merge. Then the release of energy in the fission process is explained by the freedom of that portion of the a- particles that would occupy the shared space where the nucleons overlap. This all to be a geometry problem. Once an a- particle misses or is not consumed in it’s assigned target it manifests itself as energy and that energy dissipates throughout the universe, all the while [each photon] the a- particles flow to their new destination with and consisting of the new photons.
13. Neutrinos may possibly be explained by the bookkeeping requirements of the diversion of the a- particles from the creation of the new elements. I suspect that the geometry and requirements for the construction of the new photons in a time-limited fashion requires a packet of a- particles that more closely resembles the original a- particle. Probably much fewer a- particles with a different waveform.
14. The nuclear force that does not decrease with distance, the gluon force that binds quarks, may be explained by the statement that it is the only situation where the a- particles target is separated. That the affinity for the a- particles to their assigned quark is the only stronger force than their affinity for the total target, [the sub atomic particle]. We have not been able to separate a quark or electron into any smaller package. These are primary targets for the a- particles. The gluons are composed of a- particles almost totally involved in the maintenance of the assigned target. The difference between the almost and complete involvement being the difference between the quark, or electron, and the nucleon.
15. There is a question that we ignore, if fact we don’t even ask. How is perpetual acceleration/motion possible in the orbiting action of electrons, Brownian motion and all of the other motions we observe in the sub atomic realm? All of these motions, we believe, have maintained their current levels of activity for billions of years and will continue indefinitely into the future. Also, what is the agent for magnetism? Where does the energy to maintain a force over distance come from? I maintain that the a- particle supplies all the energy, on a continuous basis for these motions and forces as well as gravity and all other forces and fields in the knowable universe. This in addition to being the substance of all matter in the knowable universe.
16. Superconductivity: The property of certain metals and alloys to offer no resistance to the flow of electrons for periods of time measured in years. All the while these electrons are in acceleration, [their paths are not straight] and the forces required for this acceleration are not defined. That is except for the a- particles and their kin. The constant supply of energy supplied by the a- particle is more than sufficient to maintain the flow of electrons along the required curved path. Please note that this path is determined by the whim of the researcher and doesn’t appear to be constrained by a set of forces and counter forces, as are most orbit type phenomena. This fact forces us to look, finally, for the source of the energy consumed by this and all of the other particle motions and forces that we observe.
17. I’m beginning to think that the best proof of this idea is the anti perpetual motion explanation, mentioned earlier. It seems that if we were asked to accept that a tiny particle could vibrate at very high, or even very low, frequencies, with no applied energy, for billions of years, that we would laugh at the suggestion. We however accept this impossible concept as reality! There is no such thing as perpetual motion, and the fact that the whole world accepts such a proposal is possibly a Deified bias we all share. This is probably justified; considering our background, but it is not necessarily appropriate at the level we are applying it. If we need to believe in a Supreme Being and by the way I definitely do believe in a Supreme Being. Then we can move His direct application of force [influence] out to the source of the a- particles. We have moved our concept of His direct influence many times in the past, and probably will move it again many times as we progress. The fact that the perpetual motion aspect of particle physics has been accepted by all and sundry possibly is because we had no viable alternative. Now we have one! The fact that all of the processes we know require constant motion at the atomic level demands an energy source for all. The a- particle.
18. I am absolutely certain that the above concept, however poorly written or expressed, describes the reality of the composition of the universe.
19. I am, of course, aware of the major disruption the a- particle will create. It should be noted that most of the existing physics require only minor adjustments to integrate this new concept. However the ability to explain the universe without the mumbo jumbo of the current system more than justifies the necessary changes. Einstein was not wrong! God does not play dice. At least with this universe.
20. “It’s the theory that decides what we can observe”—–Albert Einstein
Comments are closed.