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:
- Gravity and universal gravitation is a separate and distinct force of nature.
- 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:
- There is no difference between gravity/universal gravitation and radiation. Gravity and universal gravitation is controlled by radiation, and radiation is gravity/universal gravitation.
- The neutron is constantly charged.
Only a proper computer simulation will help to simplify the mathematics in order to test the new electromagnetic approach to universal gravitation/gravity and a better understanding of how the atomic nuclei stays together.
What is the key to understanding the strong and weak nuclear forces?
Physicists must look at the neutron very carefully. Of greatest interest is how the electron and proton come together to form the neutron. Because when the neutron is properly analysed in terms of its subatomic constituents, it is likely that we will find a unifying electromagnetic theory to fully explain the mysterious strong and weak nuclear forces. Some efforts have already been made to link electromagnetic and the weak nuclear force in the past with reasonable success. However, the most challenging 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 and the way it should be interpreted using oscillating electromagnetic fields, we can see a way to combine electromagnetism with the weak and strong nuclear force, and it all comes down to the nature of the neutron.
For example, we know the neutron is composed of the electron and proton. Fortunately this is one observation that will not need to be revised in the future. What will be discussed by theoretical physicists, however, is whether the electron and proton are properly combined to give a total uncharged entity at all times (until, of course, some mysterious weak nuclear force is somehow able to pull out the electron to cause the neutron to decay back to a proton, and with it a little bit of radiation or energy to balance the energy equation). Or is it closer to the truth to say that the electron and proton are not properly combined, but are doing 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 and a better understanding of what this theory is about today, it is suggesting that all things are charged. There is no such thing as a truly uncharged object. Therefore, the neutron must somehow have a charge at all times, but 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, thereby confusing the matter for the physicists, and creating the false perception of a neutron having zero charge.
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 level of the atomic nuclei and this so-called zero charge resolves 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 all the time.
Once we realise this possibility thanks to the Unified Field Theory, we can 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, brings his hands together quickly and just prior to the bricks falling down, he joins them together, and then starts the whole process over again and 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 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 could say the attractive force could be gravitational? How would we know for sure? 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 (and acting like it is a very strong gravitational force pulling matter together).
So yes, the neutrons are crucial in keeping the protons together in the atomic nuclei, but the thing that is actually kind of gluing the protons together in a temporary sense and turning on and off very quickly to ensure the protons don’t fly off are really the electrons.
Should we link light and gravity under the one fundamental force of nature called the electromagnetic force?
Regarding the link between gravity and light, we think there is nothing technically wrong with looking at gravity from an electromagnetic perspective, so long as the mathematics and/or experiments can show a similar magnitude in the force of the radiation pressure on the surface of the Earth with the force of gravity.
As you probably know, experiments have determined the "force of gravity" on the Earth's surface to an incredibly accurate degree, and similarly for other planets. Likewise, if one wanted to use the curvature of space-time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, then the results are not only the same, but are generally more accurate for a wider range of extreme astronomical conditions. Either way, the one factor that keeps cropping up as being somehow definitely involved in creating this "force of gravity" is the mass of the Earth. Or is this a question of the amount of charged particles making up the mass? At first it was hard to tell as Sir Isaac Newton did not consider the possibility of mass containing charged particles. Ever since Newton first established the gravitational field, scientists today have assumed that the mass must be uncharged in order to create the gravitational 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, or so we are told theoretically speaking). Even though experiments have shown how the electromagnetic field can somehow move uncharged matter, the explanation given for this is to assume the energy can be converted into mass in order to apply some form of Newtonian mechanics to the problem, or to imagine the energy in the electromagnetic field as being able to affect the curvature of space-time (i.e., via its own gravitational field) and so use the gravitational field equations of the General Theory of Relativity. But never has anyone considered the possibility that the electromagnetic field could be the source of the gravitational field. What if the two fields are really one and the same thing? Certainly the electromagnetic field can influence so-called uncharged matter just as well as the so-called gravitational field for which we are led to believe exists in reality.
This is the thing. No one has really brought down the gravitational field to its fundamental form in terms of what is making up the mass and determining from a deeper basic principle what gravity is likely to be.
Now things are changing as we speak. The Unified Field Theory devised by Einstein finally has a new interpretation. A deeper understanding of the inner workings of the universe is starting to reveal itself. At last we have the opportunity to resolve the final issue of “What is space-time?” and "What is the gravitational field (or curvature of space-time)?" It is now looking strongly like it is radiation doing all the work. If this is true, there is no reason why we should ignore the potential for radiation to perform all the same gravitational effects we see in the universe.
To paint the picture a little more clearly, we know the curvature of space-time can bend as planets and stars rotate. Any kind of rotation of mass is dragging space-time to curve in the direction of rotation. An experiment done with a satellite a few years ago, and reported in various science journals and in the Catalyst ABC program, has proven this observation.
The best analogy of this observation is to imagine water going down a sinkhole (say, in a bathtub). As the Earth rotates, the water goes around the hole before sinking into it. If you look at it in very broad terms, it kind of looks like the water is bending around the hole before disappearing into the abyss.
Then, of course, planets create another level of curvature (the term “curvature” is mathematical, so don’t take it too seriously; we should be really talking in terms of energy density of space, for the thing that is flowing through space and does the controlling of the curvature of space or strength of the gravitational field, which according to the Unified Field Theory is looking like radiation). This additional curvature is the part controlling the strength of the gravitational field. Hence you will see mathematicians draw a two-dimensional rubber surface that bends down to form a “valley” where the mass (and hence the higher strength of the gravitational field) exists.
Thus space-time is mathematically described as bending where there is mass (in classical Newtonian terms) or there is a higher strength in the gravitational field, as well as a twisting (or dragging of space-time) effect from the rotations of objects in space.
All this is good and fine up to a certain extent, but if we look at it in terms of energy density, we can better appreciate what is going on using the radiation from the Unified Field Theory. What we have is an ocean of radiation. All mass in the universe are swimming in the stuff. Nothing can escape the electromagnetic clutches of radiation. At the same time, all planets (and stars) are acting like giant sinkholes in space for radiation. Sure, some radiation will come out. Well, how else can we see the objects, right? Yet 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 what is coming in. Why? It is because radiation collides with the electrons in the atoms making up mass. Then the laws of energy conservation states that 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 at a lower frequency. Now here is the catch: a lower frequency of the radiation means a lower energy density. Not even the radiation from space hitting the Earth on the opposite side of the planet can entirely penetrate and emerge unscathed out of the ground. The radiation must be reduced and at a lower frequency. It means that we have an imbalance in the electromagnetic forces pushing matter from above compared to what is coming out of the ground. The radiation from space has to be coming down at a higher energy density and, therefore, constantly exerting greater radiation pressure on all things sitting on the surface of the Earth.
Now we come to 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 will be required to 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. You are correct to say that Einstein did require the standing on the shoulders of at least a couple of great men. In particular, the concepts of the gravitational field as suggested by Sir Isaac Newton and the electromagnetic field as suggested by Michael Faraday (and later encapsulated mathematically by Sir James Maxwell). Someone has to start the process in order for another person to see a need to make a connection and with it some kind of a unified field theory. Unification in this case for Einstein was obviously the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field, which when done mathematically results in a fairly complex mathematical structure requiring tremendous efforts to apply and find solutions even for a moderately simple and familiar real-life case. In terms of new observations and discoveries, usually a more complex non-static field case 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, we find ourselves in an unenviable position of trying to interpret the solution and see how it might relate to reality. A tough task indeed even for the seasoned mathematician. Hence the need for a physicist to apply his/hr imagination to relate the mathematics to reality in some way. 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 even needed people like Dr Leopold Infeld and others to help with the calculations.
Does this mean his mathematics is wrong? No. We know there is absolutely nothing inherently flawed about the unified field equations he produced. Einstein did the right thing. Unfortunately, his 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 fundamentally correct because he could not find anything to distinguish the properties of the two fields in any real-life way. As we know, the 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? Who knows? 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 or Newton. Sure, you can say some great scientists must stand on the shoulders of other great men in science, but at some point you also have to jump off the shoulders of a great person like Newton and make the giant leap into a new electromagnetic world where even potentially the gravitational field may not exist. 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, and then we can do the testing (sometimes more so than simply relying on mathematics for all the answers) to find out.
First question to ask, "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, "Why should the electromagnetic field behave like the gravitational field?"
Now here is where we can apply “some mathematics” and certainly our 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. How would this be achieved? Can it be tested experimentally? What can our simplified mathematics show in terms of the scale of the electromagnetic forces and can they match closely to the forces exerted by the so-called gravitational field through Newton’s laws?
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? We will find out very soon.
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. Indeed, 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 he referring to when Einstein questioned some aspect of his work?
The General Theory of relativity would have to be an example where Einstein did express some doubts about his work. 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 responsible for creating space-time? Understandably this was Einstein’s next major concern following the development of his General Theory of relativity.
Of course, history tells us that Einstein's concerns were well justified and careful thinking on his part eventually led him to the creation of his Unified Field Theory after discovering 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. Indeed, there is every likelihood that he may have already worked out just how much the electromagnetic field was contributing to the creation of the gravitational field. Maybe the electromagnetic field was the source of the gravitational field? The question for Einstein was how could he prove it? Should he use more mathematics considering the difficulty in proving his idea through experiments?
Or was Einstein simply 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?
This part is unclear.
What we do know, however, in regards to the Unified Field Theory, is that although Einstein had difficulty coming up with a non-static solution (a crucial step to understanding the nature of light) as required to represent one aspect of reality he saw and for him to come up with predictions that other scientists could test for (this is due to the complexity of the calculations and his limited time to complete all the calculations he needed), Einstein was not ready to give up on his final theory. Far from it. 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. The Unified Field Theory just seems like a classic area for him to admit he was wrong. Apparently he did not. Why? What made him so confident his work was on the right track?
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.
The other problem that Einstein was trying to figure out late in his life was 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?
This is where the next question begins: did he conduct a thought experiment to determine how likely the gravitational field could be independent of the electromagnetic field? In other words, could there be anything exotic and not electromagnetic in nature to create the gravitational field? Or does it all boil down to the fact that the electromagnetic field is the only thing to be controlling the gravitational field? And if it turns out to be the latter case, does this mean that the gravitational field does not exist? Should we be prepared to let go of the field in favour of something else—in this case, the electromagnetic field acting as the prime mover for all solid matter and other radiation, and so look upon the universe in a purely electromagnetic way? This is something our book has looked at. We have pursued the original idea that made Einstein confident the two fields had to be mathematically linked and we have taken it to its logical conclusion. Then we have asked the question of how likely Einstein could have already done the work of unifying physics from an electromagnetic perspective? Maybe he was already there and we didn't know it at the time?
Beyond that, we do know that a few months before his death he decided to burn some papers relating to his unified field theory. Rumours have it that he felt the world was not ready for his ideas. Is this because he discovered something important, but felt world events he observed at the time would conspire against him to share his ideas with others? Or was it simply the fact that his calculations for certain special situations he was trying to evaluate were incorrect and he needed to start again?
Then things got more interesting on his final night just before he died. Apparently he went back to the Unified Field Theory, asking his secretary Helen Dukas to bring in his most recent calculations. He worked on it in his bed at the hospital for a while. He stopped his work a few hours later. A nurse arrived and he acknowledged he was feeling tired and said something else just prior to falling asleep. He would never wake up again. The next day, his papers went suddenly missing (quite possibly taken by souvenir hunters at the hospital).
Whether he saw the universe in a purely electromagnetic way could be a matter of conjecture. However, what isn’t under any question is his overwhelming confidence in the structure of space-time as he understood it at the end of his life and for the more than 30 years before then. It is more than just “massless particles of electric charge” or electromagnetic radiation. He realised light was masking another property. Thanks to this additional hidden property, light behaves very much like ordinary matter (including having its own gravitational field), yet it is not like the classical fluids described in the 19th century. It has some almost magical properties, such as the ability of high-frequency radiation to propagate through it (this would effectively make space behave like rigid steel, yet somehow the planets and stars must be able to “swim” through it). The true nature of space-time has yet to be properly analyzed and understood.
Well, what better place to find out than to look more closely at the link between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field through the phenomenon of light? Better to look at this link now than to forever think the gravitational field is a real an independent force of nature that scientists still cannot grapple with to this day. In fact, things are getting pretty expensive for taxpayers given the considerable scientific efforts to build bigger and better particle accelerators in the hope of gaining a better understanding of the inner workings of matter, and yet physicists are still mystified by the gravitational field. Might as well see what is so special about the electromagnetic field to make it behave as if it could be the gravitational field. Who knows where this work may lead physics...and the rest of the world.
What is the best way of finding out if Einstein's Unified Field Theory is true?
Performing experiments are really your best option, as well as performing computer simulations where it takes into account the way radiation behaves in the presence of accelerating charged matter. 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.
You can experimentally test the viability of this "link between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields" idea by doing one of the following things:
- Reduce the temperature of an object and see what happens to the gravitational field (and the object itself).
- Place any object inside a perfect symmetrical metal box (i.e. the Faraday cage), and observe what happens to the object.
- 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:
- 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.
- Accelerating the "floating" object (at the coldest temperature or inside a perfect Faraday cage) should produce no inertial forces internally within the object.
- 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 (http://eventhorizontelescope.org/) 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 looking at it casually that the electromagnetic field from charged matter is merely contributing to the overall strength of the gravitational field. Whereas the gravitational field itself is presumably independent of the electromagnetic field and is generated strictly by uncharged matter in some mysterious way. 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 forces 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?
So, by sticking to the electromagnetic field as Einstein wanted it, we have to 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 there must be some differences from what we expect from current scientific knowledge. Something unexpected.
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 lying at the heart of the black hole. Before you get to the event horizon at a safe distance that does not significantly distort the light from visible matter surrounding the black hole, the black hole itself will be invisible (not black), not just because of its size, but also because light can bend around the object. You see, light from behind the object at sufficiently high frequencies and moving in a direction that does not get caught in a perpetual rotation around the event horizon will bend around the black hole and red-shift sufficiently to allow an observer to see what is behind the black hole. 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.
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 in any mathematical sense whether a star is still there or it becomes what some people like to imagine is a door to another universe. However, common sense tells 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. One way to slow down the rotation rate of a black hole and show the star itself is to get another black hole or a big enough star travelling at a fast enough speed 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. Because, as the physicists know, 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. 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 to stop it from collapsing on itself, and potentially help to slow the star down very slightly (but will take billions of years to slow it down enough).
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 speeds?
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? The idea seems alien to our way of understanding given what we know about water waves propagating in the oceans. 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. Rather, it is an unusual form of energy in the sense that it is incredibly lightweight. So much so that it can self-propel and self-accelerate the radiation using its own energy to achieve the maximum speed possible (as set by the energy density by other radiation, if it is present), but 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. If a 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, yet it is always there. And while the energy exists, it can influence two events located at potentially an infinite distance 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, yet in reality it cannot be observed. 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 to create the recoiling force on the charged object for accelerating it. The energy is somehow able to stick to the moving charged object. 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 solution in a perfect vacuum environment).
The same must be happening to the radiation. Apart from stretching its energy out in such a low energy density environment, the radiation can 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:
- 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. 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- The interpretation of the redshifting of light of distant galaxies and other evidence:
The Unified Field Theory is suggesting that there are 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 (with or without 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 paradox 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 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 Universe), but it depends on how we interpret the redshifting effect of light from distance galaxies. 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 as far as astronomers can tell, as the visible universe spreads out into the wider Universe.
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 not, as this will determine if we are living in a finite or infinite universe.
Why have scientists come up with a finite figure for the age and size of the universe at the present time?
Welcome to our limited understanding of the 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 evolved 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, he could have quite easily interpreted the observational evidence in the following way:
- 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. 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).
- The mathematical solution derived from Einstein's equations is supporting an energy loss, not a receding of the galaxies via the Doppler effect.
- 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 exact opposite.
Whether the universe is 13.82 billion years old, or is much older, 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, 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 is 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 more often (something we may be lacking in certain areas of our lives and at work).
What is dark energy?
Any suggestion of something mysterious pushing apart the universe in what scientists called dark energy (a term used to account for the apparent increasing rate of expansion of the universe) can only occur in the presence of energy of some type. According to the Unified Field Theory, this energy is called radiation. Therefore, radiation must be doing something to give the impression to the scientists that the universe is expanding at a greater rate the further we look into the universe. If we are to assume that the galaxies are racing away from us as the official interpretation for the redshifting effect, radiation must be at a higher energy density between the galaxies and ourselves (but probably closer to the galaxies) to push the galaxies faster to fill the lower density region behind the galaxies (i.e., further out in the universe). However, due to the way the light of supernova explosions can fool astronomers into thinking the galaxies are racing away at a faster rate, there is a good chance this dark energy is probably a non-existent entity, or it may represent merely the radiation itself. For example, as the supernova explosions occur in distant galaxies, there is a naturally heightened level of energy density created from the explosions. In other words, extra mass and light will be generated. Therefore, more light from the explosions must redshift more significantly due to energy loss as it passes through this heightened energy density. Once it emerges from the high energy density region back to the normal energy density of space between the galaxies, the red-shifting effect continues at a slower rate until the light reaches the Earth. Here, scientists may interpret the red-shifting as a receding of the galaxy, but it may be nothing more than the natural energy loss in space and from the explosions themselves.
What is dark matter?
Dark matter, on the other hand, can represent solid matter when no light is emitted, 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) will influence light and the path of visible matter (known as bright matter). However, dark matter can also be used to describe any region of seemingly empty space where the energy density 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 is 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 the radiation in space affecting the visible matter.
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 aging 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 for the energy of space to help with photon-to-photon collision for dissipating a little more of the energy. 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. The energy in space-time is displaced and brought closer to the spacecraft, leaving a much lower energy density further away. However, the rest of space-time does not like to be stretched and have a different density. 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 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:
- God comes and goes as a localised entity in the real universe.
- The leaders of any religion must be invariably male-dominated and should be maintained for all times because of a "tradition" 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:
- 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.
- 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.