Albert Einstein's
Unified Field Theory

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the unified field?

As Albert Einstein visualised it through his thought experiments and later decided to encapsulate it into his unified field equations, radiation is the unified field. Whether we call radiation an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, photons, or light in its most general sense, essentially any form of oscillating electromagnetic energy (where the energy swings from positive to negative and back again around a mean or central position we describe as zero energy, not unlike the string of a plucked guitar vibrates from a central position) creates a gravitational field.

Basically, the linking together of the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field is what Einstein means by unified.

Is there a difference between solid matter and the unified field?

There are no differences. When radiation creates a gravitational field of its own and interacts with solid matter, it behaves like solid matter. When radiation is analysed carefully for its particle-like properties during its interaction with solid matter and compare this to how a gravitational field is meant to interact with the same matter, Einstein found absolutely no difference between an oscillating electromagnetic field and a gravitational field, and similarly between an oscillating electromagnetic field and solid matter. Everything is seen as one and the same thing.

What areas of physics are likely to be challenged by Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

There are a number of areas, but our research indicates that physics will almost certainly face in the near future two main fallacies in its current knowledge:

  1. Gravity and universal gravitation is a separate and distinct force of nature.
  2. The neutron is uncharged at all times.

Looking at the Unified Field Theory and the way the universe works from observations, it is looking strongly like the following is taking place:

  1. There is no difference between gravity/universal gravitation and radiation. Gravity and universal gravitation is controlled by radiation, and radiation is gravity/universal gravitation.
  2. The neutron is constantly charged.

Only proper computer simulations will help to simplify the mathematics in order to test the new electromagnetic approach to universal gravitation/gravity and a better understanding of how atomic nuclei stay together.

What are gravitational waves?

A gravitational wave is an electromagnetic wave of higher energy density compared to the surrounding natural electromagnetic energy density of space. For example, a laser beam is a region of higher electromagnetic energy density. However, this time, the Unified Field Theory tells us that it is also a gravity amplified region of space due to this link between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field.

How fast do gravitational waves travel?

Albert Einstein and other scientists agree that the speed of a gravitational wave is the speed of light. There isn't meant to be any variation on this. Not even a tiny bit. The speed is said to be exact. Extraordinary, isn't it? Surely, such a revelation in itself should astound anyone. If you think about it carefully, why would two apparently distinctive waves with allegedly no connection to one another travel at the same speed? What is so special about the two waves having the exact same speed? Well, here lies an important clue to revealing the true nature of the gravitational field. No wave travelling at the speed of light can be considered a separate and unrelated entity to the electromagnetic wave. There has to be a connection. The fact that the gravitational wave and the electromagnetic wave travel at the same speed is really nature's way of telling us that there is a connection between the two types of waves. At last, we can now understand why. Einstein realised that both waves are one and the same thing.

Can the speed of light change?

Scientists have assumed that radiation (and, therefore, gravitational waves) travels at constant speed in any energy density environment. The reality is, this is not true. Depending on the energy density of space, the speed of light and gravitational waves can increase or decrease. Generally, the lower the energy density, the faster the speed. Increase this energy density, and the speed slows down. Thus when light bends in a denser gravitational field surrounding an astronomical body, the speed of light naturally slows down. When it emerges into the depths of space, the energy density goes down slightly, and the speed of light increases to the standard speed.

In one limiting case of zero energy density in space known as the perfect vacuum of space, radiation can stretch out to cover any distance (right up to infinity) and will transmit energy across this distance at infinite speed.

On the other hand, increase the energy density of space for radiation to travel through (i.e., place other radiation in its path) to a high enough level and you can compress and bend light back on itself, or make it move at walking speeds.

Is this limiting case of infinite speed in a perfect vacuum mathematically supported?

Yes. In Newtonian physics without any relativistic considerations applied, the mathematical universe created by Newton's equations is always described as a perfect vacuum. If radiation could be confined to a small spherical volume within a perfect vacuum, both radiation and solid matter will behave in accordance with the Newtonian laws of physics, including the ability to accelerate to infinite speed, or bend its path in a gravitational field.

Do solid particles and radiation stay together in a perfect vacuum?

If a perfect vacuum could ever exist in the real universe, radiation and solid matter would fall apart and the energy contained within them spread out and disappear. Then there would be no solid matter or any perceptibly measurable radiation. Only in the mathematical world of Newtonian physics do we assume photons and other solid matter can stay together in a confined region and behave in the manner described by the equations of motion.

Can matter exceed the speed of light?

In different energy density environments, it is possible to have solid matter moving at or exceeding the speed of light. This is certainly feasible and achievable. However, even though the speed of light can vary in a different energy density environment, no solid matter in that same energy density region can ever attain or exceed the speed of light.

When the energy density in space is the same everywhere, Einstein’s fundamental law regarding the maximum speed possible for light and matter is never violated. No solid matter can ever attain or exceed the speed of light.

How is solid matter created?

Energy and matter are never created out of nothing, nor are they destroyed. Energy is only converted to matter and vice versa. Depending on the energy density of space, you can either (i) convert matter to energy in a very low energy density region; or (ii) create matter from energy in a very high energy density region. In the latter case, it does this by bending the path of radiation to create a self-perpetuating ring-like structure of energy having all the necessary electromagnetic (and apparent gravitational) properties that give it the ability to exert an electromagnetic (or so-called gravitational) force on anything pressing against it so as to give it the impression of being a solid object.

What are exotic particles?

Exotic particles are likely to be unstable ring-like structures created by radiation. In the normal energy density of space we see in the real universe, they are extremely short-lived. The only truly fundamental and stable particles made of this ring-like energy structure in our real universe are the electrons and protons. All other matter we see that is stable and visible is created by these two fundamental particles and radiation.

  • What is inertia?

    You know the feeling when you are accelerating or decelerating, including spinning or turning in a different direction, that seems to make your body want to move in the opposite direction when it was at rest, or travel in a straight line when changing direction? This is called inertia. Traditionally this was seen as a gravitational field moving uncharged matter. However, according to the Unified Field Theory, this is caused by radiation passing through your body and moving all your charged particles making up the structure of your body. For example, when you spin, something wants to stretch your body out the further away you are from the center. This is the radiation coming out of your body, and radiation from outside is coming in from another direction to replace the energy that was lost and so keep everything in balance. Keep spinning, and the flow of radiation is continuous.

    Pick up a heavy bowling ball and hold it in your hand with your arm stretched out, and as you spin around, there is extra radiation flowing through the ball and is pushing it outwards more strongly. If another person could pick up this extra energy emitted by the ball as it swings past him/her, there would be a heightened energy density region coming off and travelling through space at the speed of light. Compared to the surrounding environment, every time the ball swings past you, you are receiving what physicists call a gravitational wave. Very faint and extremely hard to detect, but it is there. However, this is nothing more than an electromagnetic wave of high energy density.

    It is radiation that is controlling the inertial effect.

    Is there such a thing as uncharged matter?

    No. Anything that is uncharged always carries charged particles. We only describe it as uncharged because our imperfect instruments and oversized electrodes for measuring things will take a sample of the charges present over a short time frame and present an average result, which is zero charge.

    All matter is continuously charged by the electrons (negative) and protons (positive) that compose the atoms and its crystalline structure.

    What is the key to understanding the strong and weak nuclear forces?

    The neutron plays an important role in holding together the nucleus of an atom. As you know, the nucleus is composed of neutrons and protons. Protons are positively charged atomic particles. So by the laws of electromagnetism, these particles would prefer to repel from each other. However, they are kept together by synchrotron radiation of the spinning positively charged nucleus and the neutrons. The question is, how does the neutron do this? Previously, physicists assumed the neutron is constantly uncharged at all times. And if that is the case, some mysterious new force of nature has to be created by the neutrons to hold the protons together. We call this the strong nuclear force. Also, the neutron can change to a proton when somehow the electron inside the neutron comes out by another mysterious force. We call this the weak nuclear force. Ever since physicists have created these new forces of nature, there has been considerable efforts to try to understand what these forces are in reality.

    Some efforts in the past have already been made to link the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force with reasonable success. However, the most challenging part has been the strong nuclear force. In particular, why do the protons not fly off from the atomic nuclei given their identical like charges and close proximity to each other? Now, thanks to Einstein's Unified Field Theory, we can see a solution. And it all comes down to the nature of the neutron.

    For example, we know the neutron is composed of an electron and proton. This has been proven after smashing a neutron apart inside a particle accelerator. There is no questioning of this aspect. What isn't clear is how the electron and proton combine to create the neutron. At the moment, physicists assume the electron has properly combined with the proton to create a perfectly uncharged particle called the neutron and that this uncharged property remains this way all the time. What the Unified Field Theory is telling us, however, is that there is no such thing as an uncharged object. Not even the neutron. If this is true, then it might be closer to the truth to say that the electron and proton are not properly combined, but are doing some kind of an electromagnetic dance around each other. Now here is the clue.

    Before the Unified Field Theory, physicists assumed the neutron was constantly uncharged because we couldn't detect a change in its charge. We assumed the electron has somehow merged with the proton to neutralise the charge.

    With the advent of Einstein's Unified Field Theory, it would appear that all solid matter are constantly charged at all times. In the case of the neutron, it is a charge that we cannot properly measure. Why? We think it has something to do with the way the electron and proton with their opposite charges are moving around each other at such phenomenal speeds that it fools the physicists into thinking it has zero charge when in reality this is not the case.

    The best analogy is to imagine the way a boy and a girl are holding hands to stay close to each other but never touching, and yet the two are made to spin around a central point between them as they move fast in an attempt to try and break free. If this is how we should picture the neutron with its electron and proton, then the neutron must be constantly charged and changing from negative to positive so quickly that our instruments are not sensitive enough and responsive enough to pick up the difference. All the instruments are doing is taking an average result and displaying the answer as a perceived zero charge. Then physicists start to assume the neutron is uncharged. However, move down to the subatomic level of the neutron and using the world's tiniest electrode to measure things, the so-called zero charge is expected to resolve itself into a clear distinction between negative and positive, but never just one or the other for any reasonable length of time. It is constantly changing its charge all the time.

    Once we realise this possibility thanks to the Unified Field Theory, we have an interesting situation where protons can literally stay together in the nuclei in a manner not unlike the clown at a circus that holds three bricks in mid-air. All the clown has to do is press the bricks together with his hands and provide just enough lift to stop the bricks from falling down straight away. As he does so, he quickly let’s his hands go, moves them very fast as he grabs one brick and puts it in another position, and then brings his hands together quickly and just prior to the bricks falling down he joins them together, Once the bricks are lifted slightly to keep them in the air, he can start the whole process over again. Do it at night with glowing bricks and the clown wearing black clothing throughout, and the bricks will look like they are floating in the air, and jostling with each other, vying for a position, before something invisible somehow holds everything together as if a mysterious force is causing the bricks to stay attracted to each other. Of course, we all know the clown is the one holding them together. If we didn’t know this, you would say the attractive force could be gravitational? How would you know for sure? Or with the Unified Field Theory, we can say anything that is gravitational is really electromagnetic in character. Therefore, in the atomic nuclei, it is likely the strong nuclear force for holding protons together is nothing more than the electromagnetic force between electrons and protons.

    So yes, the neutrons are crucial in keeping the protons together in the atomic nucleus, but the thing that is gluing the protons together is the electron.

    Will quantum physics have classical Newtonian explanations?

    Yes, even the quantum world will have classical Newtonian explanations for why quantum particles do what they do. As much as this may shock some physicists, the reality is, everything is related by the one and only force of nature known as the electromagnetic field. It is fundamentally radiation that links all the supposedly separate fields of Newtonian physics, general relativity and quantum theory in a coherent and simple way. It is up to us to use our imagination to see the electromagnetic explanations for anything we don't fully understand and think is unique to a particular area of physics. Even the double-slit experiment will have a simple classical explanation.

    What are probability waves in quantum mechanics?

    Radiation. It is as simple as that. If you want to retain the gravitational field of Newtonian physics, then it is this field created by radiation that does the work of attracting quantum particles to certain regions of space.

    Should we link light and gravity under the one fundamental force of nature called the electromagnetic force?

    There is no reason why we shouldn't. To make the link more palatable to traditional physicists of the old gravitational field concept, one should make efforts to explain gravity from a purely electromagnetic perspective. Use radiation as the driving force for all things. Once a theory is developed to explain how gravity might work using electromagnetic fields, physicists should apply mathematics and perform new experiments to show whether the electromagnetic field can produce a certain magnitude in the force of the radiation pressure on solid matter that would be same as the force of gravity. If it looks the same for all intensive purposes, we should see the two fields as the same.

    Once we see the link, this would be time for physicists to decide which field to use to explain what is happening in the Universe. According to our research, the choice of the field we recommend physicists to keep should be the electromagnetic field.

    So what is gravity?

    Experiments have determined the "force of gravity" on the Earth's surface to an accurate degree. If one wanted to use the curvature of space-time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the results will be the same. However, the Unified Field Theory tells us there is another way to explain gravity. Previously we were told that uncharged matter was essential to creating this "force of gravity". Not any more. The Unified Field Theory is now telling us that it is the amount of charged particles making up the so-called uncharged matter that is important.

    In Sir Isaac Newton's days, he did not consider the possibility of mass containing charged particles. Ever since Newton first established the gravitational field, scientists have continued to assume that the mass must be uncharged in order for the gravitational field to exert a force on uncharged matter. As for the electromagnetic field, we have always been indoctrinated to believe that the electromagnetic field should only affect charged particles, and the gravitational field should only affect uncharged particles (the neutron is said to be an example of this). But after experiments have shown how the oscillating electromagnetic field can move uncharged matter, the explanation given for this is to assume the energy can be converted into mass and Newtonian mechanics applied to this mass to explain uncharged matter moving in the presence of radiation. This is no longer being seen as true. A new picture has emerged to show the electromagnetic field is moving the charged particles making up the uncharged matter.

    The new explanation for gravity and universal gravitation goes like this: Radiation is everywhere. The planets and stars move through an ocean of radiation. The new electromagnetic theory of gravity relies on radiation shielding and the reduction in the frequency of the radiation being emitted by matter to create an imbalance in the forces exerted on matter by radiation.

    Looking at it from a radiation shielding perspective, we need at least one other body to be present near another body for there to be a certain amount of radiation shielding. Both bodies contain a certain amount of mass to help reduce the amount of radiation reaching one side of each body — the side facing towards each other. How effective is the shielding depends on the separation distance, and on the amount of mass present, and even right down to the type of materials we use (e.g., metal spheres can act like large massive bodies with its highly effective radiation shielding properties). Once you have established some form of shielding, there is already an imbalance in the force of radiation coming in from space to hit the bodies on the outside surfaces compared to what is coming in to hit the inner surfaces as well as what is coming off the inner surfaces when the radiation gets re-emitted back into space.

    Remember, some radiation is being absorbed on the inner surfaces. Some of this radiation will try to travel through the body. Other radiation will get reflected or re-emitted back into space, which is why we can see the objects. But there is one other factor at play that we haven't considered. We have to remember that the frequency of this emitted radiation is lower than when it hit the surface in the first place. Why? It is because radiation collides with the electrons in the atoms making up the mass. And as the laws of energy conservation states, this energy will get emitted again, but not as you expect. The frequency of the emitted radiation is not the same. The frequency will be lower. Energy has been transferred to the electron and has taken up some of the energy, whereas any excess energy is emitted as radiation at a lower frequency. Now here is the catch: a lower frequency of the radiation means it has a lower energy density. Energy density controls the force of the radiation on solid matter. So when this radiation comes off the surface, the recoiling force of the radiation on the surface is reduced. Combine this with the fact that radiation from space hitting the outer surfaces of the two bodies can entirely penetrate let alone emerge unscathed out of the ground at the opposite end of each body, and we have a situation where the overall force of the radiation on the inner surfaces of each body must be less than what is being exerted by radiation coming in from space to hit the outer surfaces of the two bodies. The radiation between the two bodies must be reduced and at a lower frequency. It means that we have an imbalance in the electromagnetic forces such that the radiation wants to push the two bodies together.

    In the case of us standing on the Earth's surface, the radiation from space has to be coming down at a higher energy density and, therefore, exerting greater radiation pressure (or force) on top of us. This radiation is what's pushing us down to the surface of the Earth compared to what is coming out of the ground.

    Without the second body present, a molten object will simply be pushed by radiation into a spherical shape. However, when two bodies are in close proximity to each other, the clumping effect of matter is due entirely to the way radiation wants to naturally push the matter together, slowly at first, but later accelerate because the radiation between the two bodies are not sufficient in its energy density to provide a counteracting and balancing force to keep the bodies separated at a fixed distance. Less radiation is present between the bodies when they are closer together. This acceleration we see of matter coming together is what traditional 20th century physicists call the force of gravity.

    Furthermore, the force of radiation is exerted only on charged particles making up the bodies, never on uncharged matter. Not even on the neutrons.

    Also, if you add more charged particles to the bodies, it is possible to increase or decrease the strength of this radiation force so as to repel or attract the bodies in a more dramatic way. That is how gravity and electromagnetism are linked through this interpretation.

    Our scientific understanding of gravity and universal gravitation is changing as we speak. The Unified Field Theory devised by Einstein is setting the scene for a new interpretation. And it is now looking strongly like it is radiation doing all the work.

    How do we calculate the radiation pressure to test this new theory of gravity?

    Here we have the crux of this picture: Is this radiation pressure merely contributing to the overall force of gravity? Or is it actually doing all the work of the gravitational field? The Unified Field Theory is telling us that radiation and gravity should be one and the same thing. In other words, the radiation pressure from space at whatever energy density it has reached on hitting the Earth's surface minus whatever radiation pressure is seeping out of the ground at its own lower energy density should equal the force of gravity as measured experimentally when we drop things to the ground from the same height (i.e., not too high, but kept close to the ground). Somehow the radiation pressure of space pressing down on all of us to keep us on the surface of the Earth must equal the force of gravity.

    Is this true?

    Computer simulations should test the new idea. But if it works, a new revolution in physics will begin. And the chance to unify all of physics will be achievable under the umbrella of electromagnetism.

    This is the next aim of the physicists later this century.

    Was it not Sir Isaac Newton that began the Unified Field Theory? If so, didn't Einstein "stand on the shoulders of giants" prior to creating his own Unified Field Theory?

    As Kenneth Chow said:

    "The first person who raised Unified Field Theory was, as far as I am aware, Issac Newton (On the Shoulders of Giants, p.1146). The second was Michael Faraday. Einstein was only the third, at best, and he did not accomplish it before his death. The Unified Field Theory can only be reached by analysis of Newton's and Faraday's intuition and premonition."

    Yes, it is important to have someone start the work of a Unified Field Theory. So in a sense you are correct to say that Einstein did require the standing on the shoulders of at least a couple of great men. In the case of the gravitational field concept, this was Sir Isaac Newton's forte. As for the electromagnetic field, we must thank Michael Faraday (and Sir James Maxwell for later encapsulating mathematically the experimental results of Faraday into a coherent theory). From these two (or three) men, Einstein was able to unify the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field in a mathematical way to created his Unified Field Theory. He did it because the picture he saw of the two fields were virtually the same when it came to moving solid matter, charged or otherwise. The fields required to be mathematically cemented together to confirm the picture he saw of the two feidls.

    However, as with all things, you can't stand on the shoulders of other great men forever. Depending on what you discover along the way, sometimes you may have to decide to ignore the explanations given by other great scientist.

    For example, when Einstein unified the two fields, the hard part he had to contend with next was finding mathematical solutions from his unified field equations to help Einstein discover something in nature that would prove his idea and show the link beyond a shadow of a doubt. Given how complex the mathematical structure is of the Unified Field Theory, finding solutions even for a moderately simple and familiar real-life case requires tremendous effort. In terms of new observations and discoveries, usually a more complex non-static field case (in which radiation is an example) would be required and this will result in a lot of calculations to be performed before a solution is found. Even if a solution could be found, there is the unenviable task of interpreting the solution and seeing how it might relate to reality. A tough task indeed even for the seasoned mathematician. Even a physicist must apply his/her imagination to somehow relate the mathematics to reality in some way, and that is quiet hard to do.

    This is the problem. Of all people, Einstein had a good grasp of physics and mathematics to do it. And to some extent, he did have enough of a picture in his mind to realise what the truth is. However, as history tells us, he became bogged down by the mathematics. Why? He thought that mathematics was the only way to convince other scientists to see his approach is the right way. That is why Einstein spent so many years, and required the help of people like Dr Leopold Infeld to perform a number of his calculations. And even then, Einstein still needed to see how they relate to reality.

    Does this mean his mathematics is wrong? No. We know there is absolutely nothing inherently flawed about the unified field equations. Everything Einstein did to his equations is correct. The problem is in the amount of time needed to solve the equations and find suitable interpretations for any solutions he can find. Unfortunately, Einstein's decision to rely on mathematics turned out to be his undoing in the end. Time is short, and so much work was required to find reasonable solutions that can hopefully be tested experimentally in order to show the veracity of his theory.

    Never mind. There is still hope for all of us. Mathematics is just one beast. There is, of course, the concept behind the reason why Einstein decided to unify the two fundamental fields of electromagnetism and gravity in the first place, and with it the picture that we can apply through our imagination. The picture associated with this concept is actually quite sound, and very simple. Just like his mathematics, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept that ultimately led him to make the ambitious decision to marry the two fields. The picture he found and ruminated over for many years is correct because he could not find anything to distinguish the properties of the gravitational field from the oscillating electromagnetic field in any real-life way. This includes the fact that the oscillating electromagnetic field can move uncharged matter. In which case, how can any scientist distinguish this observation from a gravitational field? You can't. As a result, he realised there had to be a link between the two fields. As you have seen, and have been told in any physics textbook, light can move both charged and uncharged matter. Fair enough for charged matter, but why on earth would it need to move uncharged matter? What is the point of nature duplicating the same “move uncharged matter” behaviour using light when we already have the gravitational field doing the exact same work? Assuming the gravitational field is a real and distinct force of nature, it seems pointless for nature to be duplicating a function in the electromagnetic field that already exists in another field.

    Here lies the fundamental question Einstein had in his mind: why should the electromagnetic field act in a manner that is so very much like, or virtually indistinguishable from, the gravitational field when you allow this moving field to interact with uncharged matter?

    Or maybe there is meant to be a clue here? Perhaps it could test the fundamentals of physics in terms of a better understanding of the mysterious gravitational field. Certainly Einstein saw it. Not Faraday nor Newton. Sure, you can say some great scientists must stand on the shoulders of other great men in science, but at some point you must also be prepared to jump off the shoulders of a great person. In the case of the gravitational field, there is now the strong possibility that the field does not exist. If this is true, one has to move away from Newton and make the giant leap into a new electromagnetic world. Sorry Newton, but someone has to make the giant leap of faith and apply some good mathematics and/or solid rational imagination to find out. Einstein focused on the mathematics. We focus on the imagination. In other words, you can’t simply build upon other people’s work all the time. Or else you could have a situation where it is like applying one bandaid on top of another and not really getting to the source of the bleeding problem. In fact, all you are doing is allowing the infection to persist and even spread, and so requiring more bandaids to be added thinking it is making a difference (and so hold up the current scientific knowledge, flawed as it is), or at least stemming the flow of blood from the wound. But what people do not realise is that it is making the whole thing more fragile and ready to fall down and with it pull off the scab and reveal a bigger wound that we are suppose to be understanding in the first place and figuring out why we have this wound (i.e., why scientists are still figuring out what the gravitational field is to this day and still unable to unify it with other forces of nature), only to have to re-apply more bandaids (from the work of other great men) to the open wound and still not properly heal it.

    In our opinion, our research suggests it is far better to get to the source of why the wound exists and make sure the foundations are right.

    In the world of physics, it is a discipline that has the power to do this fundamental work underpinning all of science. So long as physicists ask the right questions, there is no reason why we cannot test the new electromagnetic approach to solving problems in physics (sometimes with out imagination more so than simply relying on mathematics for all the answers).

    First question to ask is, "Could there be a link between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field?"

    Might as well do an experiment to find out. For example, what would happen if we eliminated the electromagnetic field inside a near perfect symmetrical metal “Faraday” box? What would this mean for the gravitational field? How can we test the effect of a reduction in the gravitational field inside the box prior to opening it up and checking the results?

    Second question to ask is, "Why should the electromagnetic field behave like the gravitational field?"

    No one knows, unless of course, there never has been a gravitational field. In other words, the electromagnetic field has been the fundamental energy for moving solid matter. Not sure about this? Maybe it is time we apply “some mathematics” and use a bit of imagination to think of situations involving the gravitational field and find out how possible it is for the electromagnetic field to perform the same kind of work. What can our simplified mathematics tell us in terms of the scale of the electromagnetic forces being applied on solid matter and other radiation, and can they match closely to the forces exerted by the so-called gravitational field through Newton’s laws? And can it be tested through an experiment?

    There are more questions you can ask in this area. This is just the beginning.

    Is it, or is it not, possible for electromagnetism to do away with the theoretical scaffolding of the gravitational field erected by Newton (other than as a legacy of his brilliant early start thinking into the problem of gravity) and so show the true electromagnetic masterpiece underlying the entire Universe as we know it? The answer may already have arrived.

    Didn't Einstein express doubt about his work?

    Yes, Einstein did express some doubts in his own work. It just wouldn’t be Einstein if he didn’t. It is natural for any scientist to question his own work in case something comes along to cast possible doubt on certain ideas. The question is, which theories was Einstein referring to when he questioned some aspect of his own work?

    The General Theory of Relativity is one example where Einstein did express some doubts. Whilst his theory is noted for being reasonably accurate in predicting light bending around astronomical objects such as the Sun, self-collapsing high mass-energy density regions to form alleged singularities at the heart of black holes, and the accelerating motion of astronomical objects causing a dragging of space-time, to name a few, it is still not quite a complete theory. Of major concern for him at the time was why he was not able to explain the nature of space-time itself and in a real-life sense through a familiar natural phenomenon other than to believe there had to be a mysterious energy flowing through space and one whose density would affect the strength of the gravitational field?

    To put it another way, what is the source of the gravitational field which we know is part of space-time itself? Understandably this was Einstein’s next major concern. After much careful thinking, Einstein finally uncovered the clue he needed. He saw a picture in his mind that convinced him that he had to extend the General Theory of Relativity to take into account the electromagnetic field. When he completed his work, Einstein called it his Unified Field Theory.

    As you can see, Einstein would always doubt his work. But the critical thing is, he always went ahead to improve on what he did when he saw a solution. This is what led him to create his Unified Field Theory. It is all because he discovered something special about radiation. He felt a better understanding of the nature of radiation and its hidden properties was the key to appreciating how the curvature of space-time could affect the strength of the gravitational field. Yet even when he did include radiation into his General Theory of Relativity to create his Unified Field Theory, Einstein continued to have doubts about how he could prove what he did and why he felt it was important for physics to follow his approach. Of biggest concern to him was how to explain the gravitational field? He must have realised how much the electromagnetic field was contributing to the creation of the gravitational field. He could not deny it. But the question on his mind was, could the electromagnetic field be the source of the gravitational field? In other words, is the gravitational field created entirely by the electromagnetic field? Even if he could take the next step of saying the two fields are the same after conducting a thought experiment to analyse the nature of uncharged matter, Einstein still wanted to know how he could prove it. Should he use more mathematics considering the difficulty in proving his idea through experiments?

    It seems to be that Einstein was bogged down with the problem of how to separate the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field in order to see what is going on, and he tried to rely too much on mathematics to find a solution.

    Or what happens if we use our imagination to break through the complex mathematics? Instead of coming up with non-static solutions (a crucial step to understanding the nature of light and its interactions with solid matter) as required to represent so much of our reality and for him to come up with predictions that other scientists could test for, why not find new electromagnetic explanations for the biggest mysteries of science with our imagination? How much can radiation explain everything we see by creating our own pictures of how radiation might achieve certain things?

    One thing is certain, Einstein never gave up on his final theory. Far from it. He may have doubted some aspects of his work, but in the end, he never doubted his final theory. Indeed, he wanted to maintain his theory right up to the end of his life. Surely Einstein would have had many opportunities to say his theory was wrong or needed improvement. Apparently he did not. Something made him confident in his work and he did not need to say anything more about it.

    As we learn from history, Einstein wrote to his friend Michael Besso in 1954 on the problem he was having with the Unified Field Theory:

    "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

    To some of his contemporaries, this quote might suggest that his attempts of a unified field theory were not helping him reach an ultimate conclusion. Indeed, some people might even say that this is unequivocal evidence of his failure. But then we find another quote:

    "...the idea that there exist two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic, was intolerable to the theoretical spirit. We are prompted to the belief that both sorts of field must correspond to a unified structure of space."

    In other words, Einstein was confident the two fields had to be linked together to form an integral part of the structure of space-time. That is why he created the Unified Field Theory and maintained it to his death bed. He had to mathematically cement the two fields together because he could see a real-life phenomenon in the universe that links the two together. Today we can see this real-life phenomenon is called radiation, or light in its most general sense.

    Thus the only major problem for Einstein was trying to figure out late in his life how to separate the fields in reality so that he could see exactly what was producing the gravitational field. He understood the electromagnetic field was somehow linked to the gravitational field, acting as if it is the source of the gravitational field. Or was it merely contributing to the formation of the gravitational field? How can he be sure which one is closest to the truth?

    It would seem reasonable to consider the possibility of Einstein having conducted more thought experiment and realised something about the nature of uncharged matter. Maybe he did realise that matter is constantly charged and there is quite likely no gravitational field to consider. Only radiation is the fundamental force of nature to explain everything.

    For Einstein, he only wanted to know how to prove it.

    Now in the 21st century, we have a chance to find out. To see why Einstein was confident, it is really up to us to use our imagination to see through the situation right to the end. Don't rely entirely on mathematics for the answer. Using our imagination, coming up with new experiments, and a little application of simpler mathematics (and computer simulations), it should be possible to show how probable the electromagnetic field is the holy grail of physics.

    Are we able to find out?

    How can we find out if Einstein's Unified Field Theory is true?

    Use your imagination and come up with innovative new experiments. Combine this with performing computer simulations where it takes into account the way radiation behaves in the presence of accelerating charged matter, and we should be able to find out if Einstein's final theory is true. Either that, or you can start solving the unified field equations for certain real-life situations and see how well you can come up with solutions. Only problem is, once you have the solutions, you must somehow relate them back to reality, and with it a recognition of something in the real world to help support the solution or at least be able to test the solution in a practical way. After seeing how long it took Einstein to solve the equations, we think the former is probably easier.

    Here are some examples of how to experimentally test the viability of this "link between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields" idea:

    1. Reduce the temperature of an object and see what happens to the gravitational field (and the object itself).
    2. Place any object inside a perfect symmetrical metal box (i.e. the Faraday cage), and observe what happens to the object.
    3. Combine in resonance a series of degaussing equipment to create a high-frequency oscillating electromagnetic field and place an object inside the high energy density region created by the field.

    According to the Unified Field Theory, the expected results should be the following:

    1. Leaving aside the fact that matter evaporates and disappears at the coldest theoretical temperature known to science (this is said to be the outcome for our universe at the end of time assuming the universe continues to expand into nothingness, or more likely there might be some form of quantum residue depending on how big the universe is really going to get), the object should effectively be able to thumb up its proverbial nose at the gravitational field of the Earth or any other object with its normal temperatures. In other words, the object can be made to float in space.
    2. Accelerating the "floating" object (at the coldest temperature or inside a perfect Faraday cage) should produce no inertial forces internally within the object.
    3. At high electromagnetic field intensities, the light coming off the object placed in this high energy-density region, should be bent back by the intense gravitational field of the electromagnetic field (NOTE: That is Einstein's essential picture of light), and the light from behind and outside in the environment can bend around the object. It means the object can be rendered invisible to the naked eye.

    There are other tests, but to keep things simple, we recommend trying 2 or 3, which is much easier. Then we should be able to observe some level of a link between the two fields (hopefully it will be a direct link in the sense that one cannot exist without the other, and vice versa).

    Does Einstein's Unified Field Theory make predictions about what a black hole will look like?

    Jim Wagenhofer asked:


    "As scientists are entering the late stages of preparing the image of the black holes from the data gathered by the event horizon telescope project ( is there any prediction the UFT makes as to what the image would show? The pop science media keeps pitching it as a potential to disprove Einstein's General Relativity but might it serve as a landmark experiment to prove his Unified Field Theory?"

    The unified field equations of the Unified Field Theory are structured in the same way as for the gravitational field equations of the General Theory of Relativity. Any predictions made in a mathematical sense in one should be the same for the other.

    The only difference in the two theories is the decision by Einstein to add the electromagnetic field tensor to the General Theory of Relativity to create his Unified Field Theory. He did this to take into account the presence of the electric charge and the electromagnetic field created by the charge. The way this term is added gives the impression to a mathematician that the electromagnetic field from charged matter is merely contributing to the overall strength of the gravitational field and nothing more. Whereas the gravitational field itself is presumably independent of the electromagnetic field and is generated strictly by uncharged matter in some mysterious way (probably the source of which is coming from the neutron). New insights into the nature of the gravitational field and whether matter is truly uncharged is now unravelling the intricate nature of space-time and the thing that is controlling the gravitational field. It is now looking like it is radiation. Therefore, the way to view the unified field equations is essentially like the famous Einstein equation linking mass and energy. As we can see in the famous equation, one side of the equation (either energy or mass) can be transformed into the other and vice versa under the right conditions (e.g., in nuclear explosions or near the event horizon of black holes). In the case of the unified field equations, so too should we see the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field in the same way. Both fields are really one and the same thing. The unified field equations devised by Einstein is just a mathematically glorified and complicated way of espousing the same famous equation linking mass and energy, but this time using gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

    Or to put it simply, the General Theory of Relativity is the same as the Unified Field Theory except the latter now encourages physicists to look at the universe in a purely electromagnetic way. Instead of gravitational fields, we eliminate them and see the fundamental force of nature as oscillating electromagnetic fields interacting with charged matter, even within so called uncharged matter. There is no need to have a gravitational field. Why have this field if:

    • we do not know what the gravitational field is after all this time?
    • the electromagnetic field can do the work of moving so-called uncharged matter?

    Better to ignore the gravitational field altogether. Let us stick to the electromagnetic field as Einstein wanted it, and imagine what the field might be doing near a black hole and its influence on matter to determine if there are likely to be any new predictions from the Unified Field Theory.

    Predictions mean that there must be some differences from what we expect from current scientific knowledge. Something original.

    Perhaps one difference is to say that a black hole is unlikely to be totally black. It will only become black once you get to the event horizon and pass through it. And when you do, light will be stretched out significantly into the red-end of the electromagnetic spectrum that you will not be able to see anything, but by then you will be torn apart by the crushing pressures, high heat, and speed of the rotating accretion disc surrounding the highly rotating star. However, before you get to the event horizon, if you could stand at a safe distance that does not significantly distort the light from visible matter surrounding the black hole, the black hole itself will not be black. It will be invisible. It isn't because of its size (which from a distance will be small), but also because light can bend around the object. You see, light from behind the object will bend around the black hole to allow an observer to see what is behind it. If viewing from a 45 degree angle to the plane of the accretion disc, it just means you can see what appears to be the inside of the accretion disc behind the black hole if you are close enough.

    As for what happens at and beyond the event horizon, the mathematics of both the General Theory of Relativity and the Unified Field Theory break down. It becomes impossible to predict whether a star is still there or it becomes what some people like to imagine is a door to another universe because of how distorted space-time is. Ccommon sense will tell us that the star should be there all the time. It is just the fact that it is rotating at massive speeds to help draw in radiation for creating a powerful gravitational field by its own charged matter, and at the same time, dragging this radiation around it because of the stars phenomenal rotation. It is really the rotation that is creating the phenomenal gravitational field strength. One way to slow down the black hole's rotation and reveal the hidden star is to get another black hole or a big enough star to collide into a black hole. Then you will notice a black hole is just another star. What all this means is that there should be no singularity at the center of the black hole. By singularity, we mean a point where there is infinite density in the mass. Einstein did not believe in an infinite density. We can understand why. Anything infinite means that the mathematics will collapses and all sorts of weird and magical things start to happen or can be imagined, such as a possible tear in space-time to allow for space and time travel to another part of the universe. The reality is, radiation from the charged particles making up the star is balancing the situation and preventing it from creating a singularity. There is an outward electromagnetic force balancing the inward gravitational force. At the same time, the massive rotation speeds keep much of the radiation and matter rotating outside the event horizon. As the rotation of the star is not at its maximum "speed of light" scenario, some of this energy will go beyond the event horizon and fall into the star. It will not be red-shifted to zero frequency. The star does not rotate around its equator at exactly the speed of light. Some energy will get through, albeit heavily red-shifted. This energy will be added to the black hole and potentially help to slow the star down very slightly (but will take billions of years to slow it down enough). Any mass that falls in will get converted to energy. And it is this energy that will try to push out to keep the star from imploding on itself. This is what prevents an infinite density at its core.

    If there is any place for the energy to re-emerge from a black hole, it is likely to be at the poles. Here the rotation of the mass is minimal. Depending on the speed of the rotation, a certain high-frequency of the radiation can emerge as a beam.

    How does light speed up in a perfect vacuum to achieve infinite speed?

    You may have read the following article from New Scientist:

    Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass
    17:33 07 January 2013 by Jeff Hecht

    A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing.

    Metamaterials are synthetic materials with properties not found in nature. Metal and glass have been combined in previous metamaterials to bend light backwards or to make invisibility cloaks. These materials achieve their bizarre effects by manipulating the refractive index, a measure of how much a substance alters light's course and speed.

    In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second.

    No threat to Einstein

    The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" – the speed at which information is travelling – is near zero.

    As a feat of pure research, Polman's group did a great job in demonstrating the exotic features of low-index materials, says Wenshan Cai of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the work.(New Scientist, 9 January 2013.)

    It seems strange to imagine radiation as ever being able to accelerate in a perfect vacuum to infinite speeds. How is this possible? As one person said:

    "If light were slowed as it passed through something, how could it speed up again as space becomes closer to a vacuum. Surely it would have continually less to push against in order to propel itself, especially in a vacuum where it has nothing to push against? This doesn't seem to fit with how physics works. Light propagating without a medium sounds like trying to swim without water. I've heard the explanation about electricity being propelled by its paired magnetic field, but it doesn't sound like that would work in a vacuum with nothing to pull on or push against. It can't move by pushing against itself, because that's not how physics works. In a vacuum, it would be like a floating astronaut — to move and keep moving, it would either need to push against something or spend energy, like burn a fuel."

    Radiation is not like a mechanical wave as we see in water waves propagating in the oceans. Rather, it is an unusual form of energy with unique properties in the sense that it is incredibly lightweight, and it moves in other radiation like it is a frictionless fluid. As a result of these properties, radiation can self-propel and self-accelerate using its own energy to achieve the maximum speed possible (as set by the energy density by other radiation, if it is present).

    At the same time, it can also stretch out its wavelength in a low electromagnetic energy density environment. Here is a quote to support this:

    "While the light is traveling...from a higher energy density region to a lower energy density region, Maupertuis principle of least action says that the light will adapt by decreasing its momentum. Therefore, due to the conservation of quanta, the photon's wavelength will increase and its frequency will decrease."

    Thus if the energy density in space is zero because no other radiation exists, the energy stretches out to infinite distance, and at the same time, radiation can self-accelerate faster. In an infinite Universe containing a perfect vacuum, the energy will be miniscule, but not zero. Indeed it is possible that we cannot detect the energy at the quantum level (we will measure it as zero energy), yet it is always there. And while the energy exists, it can influence two events separated at infinite distances simultaneously, known in quantum theory as quantum entanglement. This is a mathematical solution derived from quantum mechanics that claims it is technically feasible to affect two events at infinite distances, even though in reality it cannot be observed experimentally or otherwise. It can only be extrapolated by mathematics to show it is feasible, but never can we see it in the real universe.

    As for the self-accelerating behaviour of radiation to make it move faster in a lower energy density environment, this is the same as we see in the Abraham-Lorentz formula in classical electrodynamics for a charged object emitting radiation in one direction. According to the mathematical solution representing a perfect vacuum in space, and assuming the charged object remains intact (i.e., does not evaporate into pure electromagnetic energy within this theoretically coldest environment possible), the radiation is never lost into space the moment it is emitted from the charged surface. Rather, the energy is somehow able to stick to the moving charged object (is this the gravitational field created by the radiation and accelerating charge helping to bend the radiation back on itself?). The energy is literally being recycled to allow for the next radiation emission to accelerate the charged object again and again. In a perfect vacuum with absolutely no other radiation to carry away the energy and cause the emitted radiation to redshift and so slow the object's acceleration, it can simply accelerate exponentially in a runaway solution to infinite speeds (the natural mathematical outcome we should expect in a perfect vacuum environment).

    The same must be happening to the radiation. Apart from stretching its energy out in a low energy density environment, the radiation can also utilise its own energy to self-accelerate to the maximum speed possible.

    How critical is density of the mass of the universe in determining whether the universe is finite or infinite?

    Very important. Whether the universe is finite or infinite will depend on:

    1. The amount of matter in the universe:
      To estimate this, we can only rely on what we can see within the visible spherical volume of the Universe, which we will call the universe (remember, the Universe is the part that is larger than the universe and contains the universe). It can only be seen as an estimate because if the universe extends well beyond the visible universe, we simply do not know precisely how much matter is present. Scientists must assume the visible universe is the Universe, or is representative of so many other visible universes that other civilisations living beyond our visible universe can see.
    2. The density of matter in the universe:
      With only the universe to go by (the part that we can see), there is a critical density that determines if the universe is closed (and thus likely to be finite), or open (and thus likely to be infinite, but either expanding or in a steady state).
    3. The distribution of matter in the Universe:
      If the mass is distributed evenly throughout the universe, then depending on its density and amount of mass, the universe could be finite or infinite. If the universe is somewhat lope-sided with more mass in certain parts, the answer will be more complicated and less reliable. Fortunately, scientists are in general agreement that it is looking like the former with all mass distributed evenly when viewed at the size of the visible universe.
    4. The interpretation of the redshifting of light of distant galaxies and other evidence:
      The Unified Field Theory is revealing two different ways to interpret the redshifting effect of light from distant galaxies and other observational evidence gathered so far by the scientists. Similarly, the solutions provided by the gravitational field equations can provide two different answers depending on how we set up the equations (as controlled by the cosmological constant). Most scientists involved in cosmology are taking on the view that the universe is probably finite and expanding. The Unified Field Theory supports a two-prong answer. The problem for scientists today will be to prove which picture in this paradoxical situation is correct. While scientists remain stuck on the Earth and making certain observations from this vantage point, it will be impossible to determine which picture is correct.

    Leaving aside how we should interpret the redshifting effect of light from distance galaxies and other evidence in point 3. we know the universe must have a certain amount of mass distributed in a way that ensures the density is about right. If not, the universe will either be closed (and thus finite, although whether we can reach the edge of a finite universe would be doubtful, since the path travelled by anyone who attempts to reach the edge of the visible universe will bend in space, and at high enough speeds time outside will move quickly as stars and galaxies move from their positions — making it extremely difficult to see where we are going, just like the experiment of a blindfolded man who is asked to walk in a straight line and discovers he can't no matter how hard he tries), or open and possibly still expanding. If it is about right, we could say the universe is flat and in a steady state (and hence an infinite and perfectly balanced Universe), but it depends on how we interpret the redshifting effect of light from distance galaxies and other observational evidence. Either we live in a highly balanced "steady-state" Universe (and the visible universe is just one tiny portion of it), or we are still in the process of expanding and, with no end in sight, the visible universe will spread out into the wider Universe (and that means the energy density of space should be going down over time).

    Whether or not the universe is expanding, in this link, scientists claim that the density is about right for a balanced and open universe. Both the accounting method and the geometrical method of calculating the mass in the universe in a certain large volume are in agreement and close to the "critical density" value.

    Here is the quote:

    "To date, both of these techniques return values for the density of the Universe entirely consistent with the critical density. Somewhat surprisingly, this suggests that we are actually balanced on the knife edge and live in a flat Universe."

    Therefore, it really comes down to whether the universe is expanding, or we are already in a steady state and has always been like this forever.

    Which answer is correct will depend on how we interpret the observational evidence for things like red-shifting of light from distant galaxies, and the mysterious blobs of extra heat seen at the edge of the visible universe, to name a few.

    Why have scientists come up with a finite figure for the age and size of the universe at the present time?

    This is because 20th century astronomers have accepted one interpretation of the observational evidence, which is to see the visible universe as finite and expanding. Welcome to our limited understanding of the visible universe as we have it from the scientists. Currently, scientists like to think of the universe as being relatively "young" and almost "anorexic" in size compared to the infinitely large and hence infinitely old age our Universe could be. Best estimate for the age of our visible universe is said to be approximately 13.82 billion years old. You may get some variation on this figure from other sources, but it is close to the figure shown here.

    In terms of distance, and hence the size of the universe, the edge of the universe is, of course, 13.82 billion light years away (see this as like the radius of a sphere and we are somewhere near the centre) because this is how far light travels at 300,000 km/s in the time the universe came to exist and evolve to this day. Could light travel further? Sure it can, but so far scientists are having trouble resolving any light emerging at distances beyond 13.82 billion light years away using any telescope on Earth or in space. There is a limit to how far we can observe. Any attempts to observe the edge of the universe will reveal "blobs" or regions where it seems the temperature of space rises slightly, but it is assumed that these "blobs" of light are the remnants of the primordial early universe at the time it first exploded 13.82 billion years ago.

    The fairly precise numerical figure scientists have come up with for the age of the universe is based on the interpretation first promulgated by a famous American astronomer many years ago. Named Dr Edwin Hubble, he was also the first person to coin the phrase for the start of the universe, which is the Big Bang. According to his interpretation of the evidence, it is believed (and seemed reasonable at the time and even to this day) the redshifting effect of light from distant galaxies is caused by a receding of the objects from our general location. Generally the further the galaxy is from us, the faster the galaxies appear to be receding from us, and the more the light redshifts.

    Today, this interpretation has been supported by most scientists because:

    1. There is a common law in physics known as the Doppler effect that shows how sound waves and light can stretch out behind a moving object. If we pick up this stretched out wave, scientists generally conclude that the object must be moving away from us.
    2. The mathematical solution of the gravitational field equations of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is suggesting that space-time itself (i.e. the supposedly empty space between objects in the universe) is stretching out. NOTE: Scientists are using a version of the equations where Einstein modified the cosmological constant to take into account Hubble's interpretation of an expanding universe. So the solution obtained from the equations will naturally be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only real issue here is how to interpret the stretching of space-time as predicted in the equations.
    3. The numerous tiny blobs of light seen by astronomers at the edge of the universe (i.e. helping to raise the universal background radiation to a slightly higher temperature) are thought to be the remnants of the primordial mass-energy material formed by the Big Bang and ready to coalesce into new stars, planets and galaxies.

    However, if Dr Edwin Hubble had other information at his finger tips — in particular, the Unified Field Theory — he could quite easily have interpreted the same observational evidence in the following way:

    1. Light naturally redshifts (i.e., loses energy) as it travels through space due to the collisions with other light. So whatever the galaxies might be doing is irrelevant and may not have any contribution to the overall amount of redshifting we observe on Earth, especially the more distant they are from the Earth. Indeed, one could conclude that the galaxies may not be receding from us, but merely going about their usual business moving in any direction and at any speed (i.e., they may not be doing anything out-of-the-ordinary).
    2. The mathematical solution derived from Einstein's equations is supporting an energy loss, not a receding of the galaxies via the Doppler effect.
    3. The blobs of light seen at the edge of the universe are probably nothing more than concentrated and heated gases surrounding more distant clusters of galaxies. It is the ionized elements making up these gases (and the galaxies themselves) that help to raise the background temperature slightly over a region of space.

    then things could have been very different today. In fact, the size and age of the universe could well be the Universe and is in a steady-state, and has always been like this forever.

    Whether the universe is 13.82 billion years old, or is much older and bigger than we can imagine, still remains a matter of debate. It will require further gathering of evidence, and a more careful attempt at interpreting the evidence based on a wider range of scientific knowledge we have gathered so far. Or else the alternative is to build a spaceship to take humans far enough into the universe to see what is going on. But even then, given the time it takes to get there and how time outside will move very quickly when travelling near the speed of light, the universe will change so drastically that we may never know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite. Unless a perfect vacuum wormhole can be created to take humans instantaneously to the edge of the universe and back again in one comfortable afternoon trip, any answer we give on Earth about the universe will have to be seen as mere speculation.

    Do wormholes exist?

    Wormholes are mathematical regions of space where a perfect vacuum exists. If any object could ever stay together inside a perfect vacuum (i.e., not evaporate the energy making up its atomic particles in this impossibly coldest temperature known to science), then technically it can be accelerated to any speed and allow it to travel to any part of the galaxy or universe virtually instantaneously depending on the length of this wormhole and how quickly you can accelerate. Unfortunately all this is just a mathematical idea having no bearing on the real universe. No technology of any advanced nature, not even those created by the most advanced aliens in the universe, can create a wormhole. Knowing the way the Universe works, no perfect vacuum can ever be allowed to exist in reality.

    However, it is perfectly fine to imagine them as existing in those science fiction films (i.e., Stars Wars) if it helps humans to use their imagination a little more (something we may be lacking in certain areas of our lives and at work).

    What is dark energy?

    According to an analysis of the light from supernova explosions in distant galaxies, there is a suggestion that some kind of a mysterious energy is pushing apart the universe at a rate that is greater than predicted by the standard Big Bang model for an expanding universe. For lack of a better term, the best scientists can do is to call this dark energy. However, the Unified Field Theory is telling us this energy must involve radiation. Somehow for radiation to give the impression to the scientists that the universe is expanding at a greater rate the further we look into the universe, radiation must be at a higher energy density between the galaxies and ourselves (but probably closer to the galaxies). This higher energy density is probably pushing the galaxies away from us at a faster rate to fill what scientists believe is a lower energy density region behind the galaxies (the part that we can't see). However, as there is another way to interpret the redhsifting effect of light from distant galaxies based on photo-to-photon collisions, it is likely this greater redshifting of the light from supernova explosions is fooling astronomers into thinking the galaxies are racing away at a faster rate, For example, as the supernova explosions occur in distant galaxies, there is a naturally heightened level of energy density created from the explosions. From all this extra mass and light generated by the explosion, any light trying to pass through this higher energy density region must redshift more significantly due to energy loss as it passes through it. Once it emerges from the high energy density region back to the normal energy density of space between the galaxies, the light will stretch out a little more and then the red-shifting effect continues at a slower rate until the light reaches the Earth. Here, scientists observe the light and start making an interpretation of the red-shifting effect as a receding of the galaxy at a rate that is considered faster than expected. However, in reality, all this may be nothing more than the natural energy loss in space and from the explosions themselves that has helped with the extra energy loss we see in the ancient light.

    What is dark matter?

    Dark matter can represent solid matter that does not emit light, thereby darkening a region in space. In which case, its gravitational effect (or more correctly, the electromagnetic pushing effect of radiation caused by dark matter's own radiation shielding effect) will influence light and the path of visible matter (known as bright matter) depending on how much dark matter is present. However, dark matter can also be used to describe any region of seemingly empty space where the energy density of the radiation is lower than the surrounding region. And as such, it can act like a highly dense form of matter in pulling radiation and anything else in the higher energy density region towards this empty region. Scientists may call this “pulling” the gravitational effect, but it is more likely to be a pushing force of the outer higher energy density region filling in the lower density region to ensure balance is always maintained (i.e., the average density of space should be the same everywhere). You can imagine the same sort of thing occurring with a highly dense and rapidly rotating matter, such as a neutron star or black hole. It will act like a lower energy density vacuum in space. The rest of space will naturally come in to fill the apparent suggestion of a void created by the matter until balance is attained, and then energy going in must be equivalent to energy coming out (called Hawkings radiation). So, in conclusion, dark matter can be either ordinary matter not emitting its own light, or it can be a region of lower than expected energy density of the natural background radiation.

    A wormhole is another example of dark matter.

    What is causing the redshifting effect of light emitted by distant galaxies, and how should scientists interpret this observation?

    At close range, the Doppler effect can be used to a reasonable level of reliability to determine whether galaxies are approaching or moving away from us. For more distant galaxies, you cannot rely on the Doppler effect. Not even the gravitational field equations showing a stretching of space-time can be used to support the Doppler theory.

    The real explanation for why the more distant the galaxies are redshifting the light and increases the further away the galaxies are, the more the redshifting effect of light is due to the energy loss in the radiation as it travels through space at greater distances.

    What is the speed of light?

    As one person commented about our video:

    "Your SUNRISE video on the Unified Field Theory says the speed of light is "300,000 kilometers per second". But that would be 1000 times the speed of light, because it's meters, not kilometers, right?"

    To be precise, the speed of light in meters per second is 299,792,458 m/s. Using kilometers as the unit of measure for distances, this would be 299,792 km/s. We have chosen 300,000 km/s in our video mainly to keep things simple. However, as you have quite rightly pointed out, some viewers may want to see greater accuracy in our video. With this in mind, we will update the video soon to reflect the level of accuracy demanded by our viewers. Thank you for picking this up.

    What causes ageing in living cells?

    One person commented:

    "In the aging process, it seems very hard to tell if we age because of cell damage. Another argument is that the aging process is programmed into our cells, like with the "Hayflick limit". But who really knows, right?"

    You are right. There is a thing called the Hayflick limit discovered by dedicated scientists in the field of gerontology. Our book discusses this limit, including the controversy surrounding it. In particular, it has been noted that when the cells are observed outside the body and watched very carefully by the scientists in a laboratory (apparently using the natural available light in the environment to help them observe the cells and so determine how many times they replicate), it seems the cells do have a limit. Eventually the cells either stop replicating, or they replicate uncontrollably and turn into cancerous cells. However, certain types of cells (e.g., stem cells) when protected inside bone (which just so happens to be made of calcium and phosphorus — both are metals) or other areas of the body, are able to replicate far more than the Hayflick limit suggests. Indeed, scientists are still trying to determine where the limit is for these cells.

    In other words, there appears to be something else in the environment that is controlling the aging process for cells. The Unified Field Theory, with its reliance on radiation given its ubiquitous nature and presence everywhere, proposes that the thing that is likely to be controlling this aging process for all "unprotected" cells is radiation. We know radiation is relentless and has the quality (or frequency) to penetrate to the very deepest levels inside the cells where it can disrupt the replication of DNA in an accurate manner. Cosmic and gamma rays constantly bombard the Earth and penetrate our bodies. Clearly radiation will have an impact on living cells. The question is, how much of a contribution does radiation play in the aging process? The Unified Field Theory suggests it could be quite a lot. Experimental testing and careful mathematical analysis may be the only way to find out for sure if this ends up being true.

    What do you think of time compression theory as a way to link electromagnetism with gravity?

    You must be referring to a YouTube comment we received in September 2018 where a paper titled Time Compression Theory was written by John Bozac and Daniel Innes discussing:

    "In the absence of space, the notion of spacetime curvature in the presence of mass and energy is replaced by the compression of time."


    "Time is viewed as an electromagnetic wave resulting in a causality between electromagnetism and gravity."

    Time compression is synonymous with energy (or space) compression. Both approaches should provide the same results so long as the mathematics are done correctly, including any links to the gravitational field. As for linking time compression to the electromagnetic field, this is perfectly understandable. Well, how else can information be carried to tell us what is happening, or appears to have happened, at the moment a signal was transmitted on the moving object? The electromagnetic field of the radio signal must be present. From the signal we get a perception of time according to the moving reference frame that sent the signal, as well as other information.

    For readers trying to grapple with this time compression concept, it is probably better to look at it in terms of energy compression (i.e., a density issue).

    Let us imagine a person sitting inside a stationary spacecraft. A radio signal is sent from the spacecraft in the direction of Earth. The signal emerges from the spacecraft's antenna into the electromagnetic medium of space.

    As you know, space has energy. And the energy is naturally distributed and kept to a certain "constant" energy density.

    Now if the natural background energy density is unchanging at all points along the path taken by the radio signal all the way to an observer sitting on the Earth's surface and we keep the distance relatively short (say, from the Moon), the frequency (or wavelength) would hardly change at all. The 0's and 1's representing the zero amplitude and above zero amplitude of the electromagnetic energy arrive at the same rate per second. This means that if the signal contains video information, you can watch what was happening inside the spacecraft at a normal rate in the sense that each passing second onboard the spacecraft will be measured as essentially the same as on Earth.

    Okay. So, what happens when the energy in a region of space between the spacecraft and the Earth is compressed? Naturally the energy density must increase. If the signal enters this higher density region of space, it will also get compressed, causing the frequency of the signal to go up (or a shortening of the wavelength). If you could be inside this compressed energy density region receiving the signal, you will be receiving the 0's and 1's at a faster rate. Therefore, watching what is going on inside the spacecraft will reveal a highly energetic observer. The person onboard the spacecraft will appear to be doing things much faster. It would be almost like he had a great big glass of Berocca vitamin shot and his energy levels have suddenly boosted and is running around like he has super human strength. But if you look more closely, even the hourly and minute dials on the clock on the wall inside the spacecraft is moving fast too. Everything has sped up inside the spacecraft. Yet the person in the spacecraft continues to experience time at a normal rate, oblivious to how the other observer (i.e., yourself on Earth) sees the situation.

    Now the signal emerges from the high energy density region and into the normal energy density of space. The signal stretches out, except the frequency has not gone back up to exactly the same amount as when it emerged from the antenna. The signal has lost a little bit of energy as it passed through the high energy density region. Frequency is slightly lower (or wavelength is slightly longer).

    Depending on how high the energy density was at the time the signal had passed through it, a change in the frequency might be noticed. It could be significant, or it could be minor. To make the energy loss more significant, you could increase the distance that the signal has to travel in space to help with the photon-to-photon collisions. At distances of millions of light years, there is likely to be a measurable redshifting (or stretching of the light). But there is another way: increasing the speed of the spacecraft to nearly the speed of light will also compress significantly the energy density along the direction of motion around the spacecraft (a bit like a snow plough accumulating extra snow in front, but this snow also extends right back to behind the object). So as the signal emerges from the antenna, there is an immediate and quite significant energy loss as it passes through this high density region. By the time the signal emerges into the normal and natural energy density of space, it has stretched out again, but not at the same frequency as it emerged from the antenna. It has redshifted significantly. So when the signal eventually reaches Earth, you can watch the effect of time dilation onboard the spacecraft where everything appears to be in slow motion because of how significant the redshifting effect of the signal has occurred. The only way to make things look normal again is to give it more time to receive all the information and for playback to be sped up.

    As for the time it takes to reach a destination in the moving object, this will be dramatically shortened. This is because an imbalance has taken place in the energy density of space-time as created by the moving object. Space-time has been compressed along the direction of moving creating a kind of stretched rubber band effect (from a gravitational field perspective). The energy in space-time is displaced and brought closer to the spacecraft, leaving a much lower energy density further ahead. However, the rest of space-time does not like to be stretched and have a different density. The Universe will even it out very quickly. To compensate, the rest of space will have to pull in a gravitational sense (or push in the electromagnetic sense) the spacecraft more significantly forward at a speed that is faster than the observer perceives it to be. The moving observer cannot tell exactly how fast other than the gravitational lens effect in front of the spacecraft is creating the illusion of the destination object being much closer. A measurement of distance will be much less. Yet the object has not jolted from its position in the universe to be closer to the spacecraft (as confirmed by you on Earth looking at this destination object). It is the fact that the higher energy density is magnifying the light in front and making it seem much closer. And yet you will reach the destination faster than you expect. The only way it is possible to reach the destination so quickly is for the spacecraft to be travelling faster than the speed of light, but the observer can't tell if this is true. He may rely on a signal from Earth telling him how fast the spacecraft is, and this is very close to the speed of light. But from the moving spacecraft perspective, there is the illusion of shorter distances. So you assume length along the direction of motion has contracted. In reality, it is just the fact that space-time is pulling the spacecraft through space much faster.

    So whether you use time compression, or space compression, both should come to the same answer.

    What is likely happening in the Universe?

    The truth is, we don't really know. We are not God to know the answer. However, if we are to apply probabilities on the likely answers (like we do in quantum mechanics), then we can say that there are two equally probable answers to consider. Due to the paradoxical nature of the universe/Universe the further we look to the edge of the visible universe using our instruments, the answers can be:

    1. Both the visible and invisible parts of the Universe could be merged into a single entity, and is in a steady state at the present time.
    2. We live in a finite universe and is expanding, but we can't be sure where the edge is due to the limit of our current observations (but most 20th century scientists are happy to assume the limit of observations is the edge of the visible universe and anything else we can see here is the remnants of the primordial gases from the Big Bang).

    In other words, we cannot be any more certain about an infinite Universe as other scientists are of a finite universe starting from a Big Bang and expanding into a bigger Universe. Choose what you will. It should be noted that the diameter of our visible universe is around 30 billion light years. Therefore, what is happening beyond the 30 billion light year mark is totally unknown. Some scientists will be happy to interpret certain blobs of light at the edge as the primordial gases from the Big Bang getting ready to coalesce to form new galaxies, but they would not know for sure. One could easily interpret the same observational evidence as representing the ionised gases surrounding already formed and ancient galaxies. Take your pick, whichever you wish to believe until more evidence is gathered!

    While the redshifting effect can also be explained as a photon-to-photon collision, there is no reason to believe nothing exists beyond the visible universe. There could quite easily be other galaxies already fully formed like our own. But because there exists two interpretations for the same redshifting effect observation, we will never know for sure which is the right answer. Remember, we are not God. We have to accept certain things about this Universe without question, and for us to make certain assumptions based on what we can see from the radiation in the visible universe so long as our interpretation of our observations are correct. And at extreme distances, there should always be two opposite interpretations supporting the same evidence/observations. Now if the redshifting effect of light is nothing more than natural energy loss of the radiation as it passes through space with its inherent energy density from other radiation and ordinary matter, then we must consider the visible universe and the invisible Universe as following the same pattern. And if so, we must already be in a steady state. No expansion or contraction can be discerned at the present time based on the available evidence gathered from our observations. Otherwise, it has to be the opposite interpretation. Until we know which is the right one to choose, we have to accept both interpretations as potentially correct until more evidence is gathered, and our interpretations for the explanation of that evidence is correct too.

    How did the visible universe and invisible Universe begin?

    This may turn out to be a mute question to ask. Seriously, how would we know, especially in regards to the invisible Universe? Was there a beginning? Or maybe not? If it could be conceivable for the entire Universe, both visible and invisible, to have started from a Big Bang, the energy density outside of this point or region of virtually infinite energy density must have been zero. Not even quantum fluctuations can be relied upon in this state. A perfect vacuum is a theoretical state that is unlikely to have ever occurred in reality. From the way space-time (or radiation) works, no kind of matter or energy can stay confined to that point or region for any length of time while the perfect vacuum exists all around it. It is an impossibility. A perfect vacuum is a mathematical concept having no bearing on the real universe we live in. But if we were to imagine it as being vaguely possible, the perfect vacuum will have to draw the energy out immediately. Or more accurately, the force inside the point or region will have infinite strength to tear it apart and immediately start filling the perfect void. Remember, there is no radiation to push against this point or region to keep the matter and energy together in what 20th century scientists have called universal gravitation (a hypothetical concept that should be better described as an electromagnetic pushing action by radiation and not some mysterious gravitational force from a field or mysterious graviton particle pulling other things together). The point or region must suddenly expand, and the expansion must be dramatic. The moment the expansion began, it should have seen all this energy and matter pushed instantaneously to infinite speed due to the fact that radiation in a zero energy density region travels at infinite speeds. This means in an infinitesimally small time frame, the matter and energy of the Universe should have expanded to an infinite distance. The only reason why matter and energy has not continued to travel at this speed and disappear into the infinite Universe is because of the energy density of space created by radiation and matter as we see it has managed to restrict the speed of light and matter to move at a slower speed to the rate we are seeing it today.

    Did a Big Bang occur?

    Probably not, but we are no certain about this than we are about what the universe or the grander Universe is doing.

    If there has ever been a Big Bang, this may be nothing more than the creation of matter from energy leading to the formation of the fundamental particles of electrons and protons and any excess energy left behind from the process. If this is true, we may have many mini-Big Bangs taking place to this day and will continue into the future throughout various parts of the Universe, wherever this may occur. Are the largest supernovas evidence for this creation? Still, such events should not be interpreted as saying that the visible universe is expanding. Like a rock thrown in the middle of a large enough pond, the energy and/or matter expanding from a point or region must eventually fade out and merge with the Universe to maintain this steady state. This is what happens when we observe the amplitude of the ripples in a pond disturbed by a rock goes down over time the further away you move from the source.

    How do we prove the universe/Universe is finite or infinite?

    The only way to prove the steady state infinite Universe or otherwise for the visible universe we live in will require all scientists to perform the longest running and biggest scientific experiment and one that can be performed and maintained by the oldest civilisations in the Universe. The aim here is to find any variation in the average energy density of space over time at different places throughout the Universe. This can be done by measuring the speed of light passing through space. If there is any variation in the speed of light and is consistent at any distances we travel away from a central point and no form of matter (or lack thereof) can account for this, the visible universe and the invisible Universe must be changing. In which case, the visible universe cannot be an infinite Universe and thus be in a steady state. However, if the the speed of light is on average constant everywhere for the given average energy density we are living in and at al times, we have reached a steady state of the Universe. It is the state of true balance.

    What areas of religion are likely to be challenged by Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

    There are a number of areas, but our research indicates that religion will almost certainly face two main fallacies in its current knowledge:

    1. God comes and goes as a localised entity in the real universe.
    2. The leaders of any religion must be invariably male-dominated and should be maintained for all times because of a "tradition" that we must presumably follow.

    Looking at the Unified Field Theory and the way the universe works from observations, it is looking strongly like the following is taking place:

    1. The true indiscriminate God (technically speaking, it should be seen as unnameable according to Eastern mysticism as a way of avoiding any localisation of the thing through words) is embedded into the framework of the universe at a fundamental level through the thing that lies at the heart of the Unified Field Theory (i.e., radiation). It is through radiation and with sufficient time that the true God always maintain balance and ensures the universe exists for all times. Therefore, any claim by humans of a God coming down from the sky in some physical and localised form to influence humanity, as allegedly occurred in the past according to some religious texts (most notably in Christian and Jewish scriptures), is actually a lesser "god" with highly sophisticated abilities (i.e., a technology and advanced knowledge). It is a god that has understood the concept of balance and the principle of love and wishes to teach humanity the concepts. Indeed, any discussion of a localised God in the past trying to influence human affairs could be the earliest evidence of the first contact by humans with advanced extraterrestrial life in official recorded history.
    2. A true understanding of God requires a balance in all aspects of the knowledge and practices of a religion. In other words, a true religion of God must always respect and support this concept of balance and the principle of love by ensuring no discrimination takes place and all are treated the same and with kindness, including the gender roles in leadership positions of a religion.