This hypothesis presents a new cosmology that is based upon the proposition that space consists of an energetic medium that is infinite and eternal. The form of energy proposed is a kinetic energy lattice.
This new concept of the cosmic structure brings in its train the derivation of a rational human philosophy and also supplies the basis for a credible approach to fundamental physics. It provides powerful explanations for most of the important phenomena that we encounter on Earth and observe elsewhere in the cosmos.
If physics is seen as a comprehensive knowledge of the behaviour of a cosmic system that is completely defined by a set of laws, then fundamental physics is a comprehensive explanation of the source and the means of application of that set of laws.
The ultimate source of the laws of physics and of life itself has remained a mystery. Few physicists of this or any previous era would be able to explain clearly what exactly determines the laws of physics, how or where they are written, in what form or ‘language’, nor how these laws are transported to and applied simultaneously and continuously everywhere in the cosmos at both extremes of the scale of magnitude.
The ‘big bang, expanding universe’ interpretation of the red shift phenomenon has persisted for more than a century together with the incredible companion concept of a finite size and age for the cosmos The twentieth century saw enormous progress in the applied sciences and technology in general, but virtually no progress at all in the fundamentals of physics cosmology and philosophy. To demonstrate the truth of that statement it is only necessary to refer to some of the fundamental topics about which it is still perfectly true to say that little or nothing is known for certain at the present time.
One might mention as examples reality, existence, the age, size and the basic energy cycles and mechanisms of the cosmos, how matter is created and destroyed, sentience, gravity, electric and magnetic fields, mass, matter, momentum, energy, light, ‘apparent depth’, radiation, our own species’ evolutionary destination, and the ultimate source of the natural laws. It is fairly safe to say that if any of the above mentioned topics had been advanced or clarified by any appreciable amount, we would all surely have read or heard about it. The continued dearth of a satisfactory explanation is sufficient to justify the publication of this radical departure. It might be just what you have been looking for.
This hypothetical model postulates that the cosmos is infinite in extent and essentially homogeneous on a large scale, and consequently it must also be eternal It sets out to describe a fundamental explanation of how all the laws of physics are created enacted and distributed to every point in the cosmos.
In order to claim that the explanation is fundamental it must be able to relate all observable facts and phenomena to an irreducibly simple mechanism that is capable of generating and displaying all of the characteristics of our cosmos.
The mechanism that has emerged from this analysis is an infinite and eternal kinetic lattice, and much of the following is devoted to describing the relevant evidence and explaining in some detail how the most fundamental cosmic processes might work.
If an energetic lattice does not seem simple enough as a starting point, compare it with the task of starting a cosmos from scratch by first being required to create an all-powerful, all-creating self-conscious deity out of absolutely nothing.
Since the first version of this hypothesis was published on the Web in January 2000 several important possibilities have become much clearer. Perhaps the most surprising realisation was that the twentieth century Standard Model of the Cosmos is as fallacious and intellectually misleading as were the earlier conceptions. The Standard Model simply must be discarded, together with its ‘expanding universe’, wormholes, time travel, parallel ‘multiverses’, ‘entropic run-down’, space-time, and ‘other dimensions’.
It might be helpful to some to stress the point that in this model the word cosmos is taken to include all of the infinity of space and of every ‘thing’ in space. Our galaxy, ‘the milky way’, is only one of an infinite number of such galaxies, each one of which contains billions of stars such as our sun but a few people have occasionally been unclear about the distinction between the terms galaxy, universe and cosmos.
No telescope is sensitive enough to reach out to infinity. It is not reasonable to conclude from that fact that the cosmos itself is limited so as to include only those objects that can be seen from Earth. This concept is little better than the ancestral belief that the Earth is the centre of the Universe.
If we could swiftly get to the farthest star that is visible from Earth and search afresh with our telescopes we would be able to see more of the cosmos and the view would again and always be very similar in all directions, much like the view we have from Earth.
The ‘expanding universe’ concept requires that one is prepared to accept the notion of a unique and finite zone containing all of the matter that exists anywhere. In the Standard Model this unique zone is identified as ‘the universe’, and it is surrounded by an infinite ‘empty space’, that is not considered to be part of the universe and therefore apparently requires no understanding.
It is, however, impossible to imagine an end to space, is it not? What could be outside or beyond that? So for a start we can perhaps all agree that ‘space’ must be infinite. This statement obviously demands a clear definition of exactly what we mean by space. It is also evident that any thing that is infinite in extent must also be eternal in duration. It would take an infinite amount of time to create or destroy an infinite thing no matter what rate of construction or destruction was employed.
Since we can apparently make so little serious progress towards a fundamental understanding of the phenomena such as stars and particles that we can actually see and handle, perhaps we might do better if we were to start by analysing what is known about ‘empty space’; then we might try to deduce what the observable properties of space might suggest about its intimate structure..
An early contender in the search for a satisfactory cosmology was the ‘steady state cosmos’. This concept was considered and then debunked by the completely spurious argument that ‘steady state’ was synonymous with ‘static’ because every massive body in space would be surrounded uniformly by the same infinity of mass, and would therefore experience no tendency to move or aggregate.
This rebuttal is so obviously fallacious that one is certainly entitled to re-examine the concept of a hypothetical infinite cosmos in which all of the various self-evolving cosmic processes proceed simultaneously at different stages that are appropriate to suit the local conditions in diverse locations throughout the infinity of space.
Certainly one of the largest obstacles in recent times in the quest for a true cosmology has been the Michelson and Morley experiment. The objective of this experiment was to determine whether or not the Earth’s motion through space affects the velocity of light at the surface of the planet in any way.
It is clear enough that the velocity of the Earth through space due to its motion round the sun could only be about one tenth of one percent of the velocity of light, so their apparatus had to be as large as was practicable in order to produce a sufficiently accurate measurement and result. Unfortunately the great physical size that was required for the arms of their optical interferometer made it necessary for the device to be laid out horizontally on the ground. They did not realise that this obviously practical arrangement of the apparatus might render it unsuitable for detecting or analysing the motion of space around and through the planet. At the time there was no deep consideration of the structure or properties of space itself, and the assumption was made that space, or ‘the ether’, as it was then known, would behave ‘like a perfect fluid’.
When their experimentation was concluded they announced that they had detected no ether wind, and the somewhat puzzling summary concluded that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the observer. This is puzzling because it is easily verifiable that the frequency of observed light is certainly dependent upon relative motion between the source of light and the observer. If one were to observe a specific wavelength of light from a distant source and then start to accelerate towards the source the observed light would become blue shifted in proportion to the velocity of the observer by the well known Doppler Effect. How could this change in observed frequency happen if the relative velocity between light and observer did not change?
The confusion can be resolved if we consider an analogy. Suppose an aircraft flying towards an observer were to fire a bullet towards the observer, and the velocity of the bullet was measured by radar, the observer would see that the velocity of the bullet was equal to the velocity of the aircraft plus the bullet’s velocity relative to the aircraft. If the aircraft fired another bullet towards the observer as it flew away from the observer the observed velocity of the bullet would be seen to have reduced by twice the speed of the aircraft. This would happen because the velocity of the bullet through the intervening space is affected by the velocity of its source, the gun in the aircraft..
If the aircraft were to drop the empty bullet cases onto still water as it flew, the ripples on the water caused by the falling bullet cases would travel towards the observer at a speed determined by the properties of the water. If the speed of the ripples coming from both of the splashdown points were measured it would be found that they were the same. This is because the velocity of the bullets themselves is independent of the velocity of the ripples.
The Michelson and Morley experiment illustrated the fact that the velocity of light through space is also independent of the velocity of the source or the observer. In other words light is a wave in an independent medium not a self-contained particle. Curiously enough the experiment was taken to be evidence that space possesses no structure or energy of its own, with an unspoken corollary that light should therefore be able to exist in absolute emptiness. Due to this confusion it has since that time been thought reasonable by some to exclude consideration of any cosmic explanation that was not ‘background independent’. This is like being asked to explain sound without any reference to air, a task, surely that only a mathematician would take seriously.
In the past century we have seen ample evidence of the difficulties that arose from acceptance of that negative result. It was assumed by many that this apparent absence of a ‘space wind’ was proof that space possesses no energetic structure or properties and can therefore exhibit no properties or behaviour of its own. It was consequently thought that space consists of absolutely nothing and contains nothing except ‘dust’ and a few atoms blown upwards and out to the farthest voids by the explosions of evolving stars. It is also suggested that nebulae are formed simply by aggregation of such material. The dogma that matter cannot be created or destroyed is still thought by many to be true.
The result of this situation is that a great majority of the world’s supply of analytical talent has been squandered for a hundred years on a futile attempt to find a sound mathematically conceived and expressed explanation of an unreal and impossible cosmos that is based upon the ‘empty space, expanding finite universe’ fallacies.
There is little reason to doubt the authenticity of the red shift data. It is certainly true that any light that arrives at the Earth from a far-away place will be found upon accurate examination to have stretched by an amount that is proportional to the distance that the light has travelled. It is not the evidence that is questionable, but the choice of explanation of the data.
Some recently noticed phenomena, such as gravity lensing and the unexpected orbital velocities of stars in distant galaxies have now been reliably observed, and these phenomena provide powerful support for the principal assertion of this kinetic lattice hypothesis that the density of ‘empty’ space is certainly a variable quantity that is relevant to conditions at that specific location.
This model was constructed by using the engineering method of functional analysis. This technique seeks to determine the nature of a system by analysis of its exhibited properties and behaviour. Each step in the process is a logical and reasonable progression from the previous ones, and the starting point is based upon observation and analysis of all the significant phenomena that are detectable within the visibly accessible cosmos.
The technique of functional analysis is susceptible to error, naturally, especially in cases where there may exist several alternative choices at several points in the train of causation. However, if careful synthesis produces a hypothesis that supplies credible explanations for all of the stubborn old problems and even suggests some new possibilities for future exploration, then surely it would be foolish to dismiss such an effort as intrinsically worthless. Closeness of fit of its predictions with reality is the best measure of the quality or reliability of a hypothesis.
It is impossible to prove beyond all doubt any hypothesis that seeks to describe or explain phenomena that exist at the ultimate level of smallness. All such speculation is and must be a form of science fiction. However, if the derivation of that scientific fiction is careful enough it will not offend against observable reality and may even inspire and promote clearer and more accurate forward thinking of other innovators.
Other current hypotheses, assertions and enthusiasms in fundamental physics such as relativity, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, string theory, super-string theory, ‘branes’, gravitational photons and the like all suffer from a common failing. Not one of these ideas goes deep enough to actually explain anything at all at a genuinely fundamental level.
Surely what is required in a great theory of everything is that it must be completely fundamental, comprehensive and internally consistent. The proposed hypothesis must be able to explain each and every phenomenon of the observable cosmos, including ourselves, of course, and it must not be contradicted by any known facts.
Many attempts must have been made to produce a complete model of the invisible foundations of reality by manipulation and analysis of mathematical models, but it is surely well understood that a mathematical model can only depict that which is precisely implied in the architecture of the mathematics. Mathematics is certainly ideal for description and analysis but it has no mind of its own, and is totally devoid of creativity. The mathematicians must first acquire a broad conceptual understanding of the probable form and content of the solution to their problem if they wish to develop a genuinely new mathematically expressed description of all reality. It is also vital that the initial assumptions are appropriate and true.
Narrative description of a hypothetical cosmic structure such as this kinetic lattice hypothesis is an essential prerequisite in the process of evolving the new fundamental concepts upon which more formal analysis and description can then be based.
New insights might be obtained by starting an analysis of the cosmos at ‘the other end’, concentrating initially on the properties and functions of space itself, rather than attempting to comprehend the structure and origin of particles and massive bodies that are known to exist in space, and of which every ‘thing’ is composed.
In particular one might ask how could space possibly ‘possess’ reliable and repeatable electromagnetic impedance if it consisted either of total emptiness or of an unspecifiable ‘chaotic energy’. How could space possess or exhibit any properties at all if it had no structure?
It is a challenging and interesting project to attempt to design a hypothetical cosmos from first principles using standard applied physics, and analytical design methodology, and regarding the known characteristics and properties of the observable cosmos as both the specification and the font of clues. It seems reasonable to restrict the number of fundamental components to be used in the construction of this putative cosmos to the obvious two. There would have to be an infinite emptiness that might be termed absolute space and an infinite supply of a chosen and specified form of energy that resides within that space.
Kinetic energy was my choice, in the form of an infinite number of minimal particulate masses, referred to herein as ergons or m1 particles, existing everywhere in great profusion and travelling through absolute space at a suitable common speed, v. These minimal attometric particles, (attometric means billionths of a billionth of a meter in size, and perhaps 10 -35kg in mass) that I have termed Ergons, do not themselves possess any complex internal structure or external medium of linkage with their environment that would be capable of producing any localised gravitational or electric field. They specifically exist in total isolation and are free to move in absolute space. It is only their linear velocity and axial spin that gives them energy, and their velocity is acquired and regulated solely by lossless collision with adjacent identical particles in their vicinity of the infinite lattice.
This is the point at which the lattice hypothesis commences. The ultimate nature composition or internal structure of the proposed energetic m1 particles themselves, the ‘ergons’, has not been fully elucidated. It may not be possible to know or deduce more about them. Readers may care to try for themselves, or at least settle for regarding the ergonic lattice concept as being viable, or at least a reasonable basis for a hypothetical explanation of the fundamental physics of the entire cosmos.
Part Two of Part One
This hypothesis proposes that all the known forces, phenomena, and particles of our cosmos exist as the modulation properties of an infinite kinetic lattice that is energised and sustained by synchronistic ergonic collision. Furthermore, the geometrical structure of the lattice consists of fully tessellating cuboids. Each cuboid defines and occupies a minimal quantity of ‘actual space’, and is therefore referred to as an ‘ergonic space quantum’.
Each and every space quantum must be capable of expressing all of the known energetic fields, namely gravitational, electric, magnetic, and sentient fields. The lattice must also source the energy contained within primary permanent particles, and provide the influential structure, or kinetic geometry, that holds them together.
The individual ergon has minimal mass, m1, but because it is as an isolated object it is not capable of creating a field of any kind. A field is by definition extensive, and its remote parts have to be sustained and coupled together by an interconnecting structure of some kind. The specified ergon therefore possesses kinetic energy but has no momentum! This will be explained when the properties of ‘actual space’ are discussed.
The ‘empty’ absolute space in which these minimal mass ergons exist does not provide any form of coupling between adjacent ergons except impact upon collision, so that they are not capable of generating any form of radiated energy field on their own. Thus, when such particles collide, they reflect one another perfectly since there is no means by which they could lose energy, and there is no ‘sink’ available into which ‘lost’ energy might escape. Every ergonic collision must therefore be lossless, and leave the same nett energy in the system after impact as existed before the impact.
This model examines the possibilities inherent in an infinite volume of absolutely empty space that is fully inhabited by a stable isotropic lattice of synchronised perfectly colliding particles, each particle possessing identical Newtonian kinetic energy of ½ m1 v2, where m1 is the mass of an ergon, v is ?3c, and c is the local actual velocity of light.
The velocity of the ergons must be greater than the velocity of light because the ergons have to oscillate across the diagonal span of a cuboidal space quantum while the disturbance that expresses light is travelling across the side of the quantum.
This approach, in which ‘actual space’ is seen as an infinite geometrically ordered energetic continuum that can be deeply modulated in intensity, produces a really new insight into the modus operandi of an infinite eternal cosmos.
This model of the cosmos is based on the proposition that no properties or behaviour can exist unless a suitable structure exists to source and portray those properties and that behaviour.
All ‘real things’ possess structure. A thought, for example, does not exist until there is proper nervous activity in a suitably relevant neural pathway in the memory of a conscious brain.
The observation that space undoubtedly exhibits and portrays properties such as location, motion, magnitude, and persistence of things, and the transmission of gravitational and electromagnetic fields and photons therefore implies that it must also possess an energetic structure of a suitable kind.
Since the cosmos clearly contains a great amount of space, it is only logical first to identify and analyse the properties of space, and then to propose a form of infinite structure that might be capable of producing these properties. Success in this field of endeavour might be a useful beginning, and understanding the properties and structure of space must surely be a less complex business than understanding matter.
Part three of part one to be published shortly. If you wish to purchase the whole book please use the Purchase page.
