A Unified Field Theory

A summary of the Unified Field Theory

INDEX

## Michelson–Morley Experiment

In the image above we see a train moving towards the position of the observer. The sound waves have been ‘pushed together' because the train is moving towards the position of the observer and the result is the creation of a higher pitched sound as the train approaches. When the train passes by the sound waves are ‘stretched apart' and suddenly the pitch of the sound drops (‘weeee' as the train approaches which then suddenly drops to a lower pitched ‘wooooo' as the train passes by and begins to move away.

In the 19th century physicists believed that there must be a ‘luminous aether' that was responsible for propagating light waves through space (much in the same way that sound waves only propagate through air and cannot propagate through a vacuum, or in the same way that waves propagate through water...if a buoy is sitting in water and a wave passes by, the buoy will only bob up and down vertically and experiences no ‘horizontal motion', since it is just the ‘energy of the wave' that moves through water, while the water itself is not in motion).

According to the assumptions at the time, light waves must therefore obey the classical laws of motion, and we would expect that in the direction of the earth's motion through orbit, the speed of light would be slightly greater (since the velocity of the source of the light on earth would be additive, resulting in a slightly greater velocity of light). The speed of light is calculated based upon the wave length and the frequency (with a greater frequency of oscillations leading to a shorter wavelength, which is the measure of the wave from peak to trough through a full cycle). When two wave forms are not equal, this can generate an interference pattern, and the Michelson–Morley Experiment was designed to detect this change in velocity of light by detecting the interference pattern.

We might expect the light to be ‘blue shifted' in the direction of the motion of the earth (much as a sound wave is more ‘high pitched' with a higher frequency when a train approaches). This could be compared to the frequency of a light wave sent perpendicular to the direction of the motion of the earth which when bounced off of mirrors and recombined would then generate an interference pattern which would be proof of the difference in the speed of light, which would then be interpreted as proof that light propagated through an aether field that existed in space (the idea here being that the earth moved through this aether while the light also moved through this aether, with the result being differing velocities of light dependant upon the direction of the motion of the observer relative to the wave front moving through this aether field).

The experiment produced a null result, and this then led to one of the fundamental postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity, which is that the speed of light is constant and always appears to be the same independent of the relative motion of any observer. Any change in the frequency of light, such as ‘red shifting' of light is then attributed to ‘time dilation' (the clock changes speed and therefore the wave fronts seems to be approaching slower, while the speed of light itself remains constant in the relative frame of the observer).

## Rest Frames

If two trains were passing by each other on parallel tracks, you might look out the window and see someone on the other train appear to be rushing by you, and it can be difficult to tell whether or not you are moving, or whether you are stationary and the other train is moving past, since the results appear the same in both cases.

It could be that one train is stationary, and the other is moving past at a certain velocity, as in figure 1., or it could be that both trains are in motion in opposite directions as in figure 2., or it could be that the second train is moving and the other is stationary as in figure 3., which is exactly opposite to the situation in figure 1., although if you were to look out the train window in any of these cases the results would appear to be the same. According to what has been called Galileo's principle of relativity, it is impossible to determine a fixed velocity of any object as compared to an object in a state of perfect ‘rest' (motionless) given that all objects are in motion, and so therefore all we can do is to speak of a relative velocity of one moving object relative to another moving object. For example it might appear that one train is moving at 120 kilometers per hour in a certain direction, but it could be that two trains are both moving at 60 kilometers per hour in opposite directions (as in figure 2.). If we assign one of the trains the role of the relative ‘rest frame' then we assign a relative velocity of 120 kilometers per hour to the second train, while an observer standing beside the tracks might assign a velocity of 60 kilometers per hour to both trains (since this observer is in a different relative frame). To an observer on board a train it might be impossible to determine the difference, and so therefore he would be forced to guess whether or not his train was stationary and the other moving, or any of a number of possible motions of both trains which would produce the apparent relative result of the other train appearing to be in motion at 120 kilometers per hour.

In Einstein's transparent box thought experiment, a transparent box is flying through space. Light waves are sent both with and against the motion of the box. We might expect that the light would behave like sound waves emitted by the train, and be red shifted (lower frequency) against the motion of the box and blue shifted (additive velocities) when in agreement with the motion of the transparent box.

Now we can think of this transparent box as being any experiment with light waves which has ever been conducted on the surface of the earth, since the earth resembles a ‘transparent box' flying through space at a certain velocity as it orbits the sun. In every case the results are always the same. The light appears to be traveling at a constant speed to any observer in motion with the transparent box (light always appears the same in all directions) while to an observer in a different frame of reference (outside the box) who would be moving at a different velocity, who would then consider their own frame to be the relative rest frame (where the behavior of light is constant, which is the definition of this ‘rest frame') it would then appear that the light wave emitted from the earth was either ‘red shifted' (the earth was apparent moving away from their position at a certain velocity) or ‘blue shifted' (the light appeared to be moving towards their position at a certain velocity). To the observer in the outside frame of reference the light obeys the rules of the Doppler effect and behaves just like sound waves do when emitted by a train, while to an observer within any relative frame which becomes for them the ‘rest frame' neither the frequency of speed of light ever appears to change.

...

The above animated sequences are intended to illustrate the principle of ‘relativity' and the meaning of the ‘relative frame of reference'. On the left we see how things appear to be from the point of view of an observer who is in motion (at the same velocity as the frame of reference). The speed of light appears constant, and the light appears to reach both walls of the ‘transparent box' simultaneously. This is how light appears to behave within a moving frame such as the earth itself (when the observer is located upon the earth and so therefore is moving with the earth at the same velocity). The box appears to be ‘the rest frame' (as though it was not in motion). On the right we see the same frame being observed from outside the box by an observer moving at a different velocity (such that it now appears that it is the box that is moving relative to this observer's frame which is now assigned the role of the relative rest frame which appears to be stationary). From the point of view of this observer it appears that box and the light wave move independently, and so therefore the lightwave reaches one side of the box earlier and the other side of the box later. What seems ‘simultaneous' to an observer within a ‘rest frame' no longer seems ‘simultaneous' to an observer who is ‘outside the box' and is observing the exact same event from the outside looking in.

You may have heard about the search for ‘string theories' as well as various other extremely strange, even weird sounding, theories being proposed in the field of physics, and it is in the hopes of making sense out of such a bizarre phenomenon that the search continues to push back the frontiers of physics, for it turns out that Einstein did not leave behind solutions but only enigmatic riddles that are still not properly understood. It would seem to me that just as nature abhors a vacuum, so to does theoretical physics find gaps to be intolerable, and so therefore some way will be found to plug the hole, and at times that can be done by resorting to ad hoc hypotheses. One example of this would be the attempt to understand such phenomena by resorting to ‘the Lorentz contraction' and ‘time dilation' so as to suggest that ‘moving rods change their length' and ‘moving clocks change their time', with the combination of the two composing the prevailing ‘ad hoc hypothesis' left behind by Einstein. (I can accept that moving rods appear to be shorter, as a type of optical illusion, but I am convinced that the correct explanation for this strange phenomena is to be found else where).

...

A meter is defined as such and such a number of wavelengths of a certain frequency of light. If a meter stick is measured within a ‘rest frame' (such as the moving earth) a meter stick is measured as being one meter in length. However, just as light meets the walls of a moving frame at different times when observed by someone outside the frame, a moving measuring stick will be measured as having a length greater than or less than the expected value (an attempt is made to explain this phenomenon by means of the Lorentz length contraction hypothesis).

## The Aether

If a Unified Field Theory is to be a Unified Field Theory, it must incorporate the largest visible field in the universe, which is what has been called this ‘warped three dimensional space field'. Space must be considered ‘an energy field', which for the purposes of this Unified Field Theory, would mean that space is ‘a momentum field' (for it is the postulate of this theory that all fields are manifestations of the one field, which is the ‘momentum field'). It has been said that the Michelson–Morley Experiment definitively rules out the existence of our ‘aether' (this momentum field) by demonstrating that it is impossible within any reference frame to see any difference in the frequency, and thus the velocity of light, which always appears to be a fixed constant.

This idea is fallacious, for it would appear that we live in a universe where the system has been jury rigged and fixed in such a way that every frame appears to be a ‘rest frame', and for this reason the Michelson–Morley Experiment was fated to fail before the experiment was even conducted, for the game is rigged right from the start. Such an experiment can never prove or disprove the existence of some ‘aether' using the criteria established for such an experiment, for the experiment is based upon certain assumptions as to what should happen, and which then does not happen, which then proves nothing other than that if you are going to play poker at table with a crooked dealer who is palming off cards from a stacked deck, no matter how cleverly you play your hand you are destined to be taken to the cleaners every single time.

The Michelson–Morley Experiment did prove that the card deck was stacked before hand, such that the speed of light appears constant to all observers in every relative frame, which for them becomes like a rest frame, and this was a valuable experimental result in itself. For this reason we cannot even determine with certainty that the speed of light is a fixed constant, and so therefore it is good to consider other possibilities which might produce some interesting results over the long term (such as new forms of propulsion and new forms of ‘green energy generation', which might turn out to rely upon unconventional interpretations, which would then be the kind of indirect evidence required to validate an alternative hypothesis).

## Space as a Momentum Field

To avoid cluttering pages with unnecessary repetition, I have a summary prepared justifying the ‘aether' of the Unified Field Theory (the momentum field). This is found on a separate page. These concepts are required to understand the discussion that follows. Summary of the Unified Field Theory.

## The Particle Accelerator/Decelerator

An accelerated particle of mass in a particle accelerator, such as the Large Hadron Collider follows a spiral path through the magnetic field. The mass particle also releases large amounts of momentum energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. High energy particle accelerators require shielding because of the massive dose of radiated energy expelled by these spiraling chunks of matter.

An increase in momentum is equivalent to an increase in ‘inertia' and it has been said that a particle accelerator cannot accelerate a particle beyond the speed of light barrier because of the ‘enormous inertia' of the accelerated particle (it has become to heavy to push, which is to say it has become ‘more massive'). Einstein referred to momentum as ‘relative mass', and it is interesting that in a particle accelerator, the accelerated particles are losing massive amounts of momentum energy, with the amount of energy lost increasing as the particles are accelerated to speeds approaching the ‘speed of light'.

No sooner was the first Particle Accelerator built when immediately the device sprung a leak, and they have been leaking momentum energy right up to this day, dumping energy overboard in a most wasteful manner.

A relationship exists between ‘momentum energy' and the mass particle called ‘the electron', in that two gamma rays combine to produce one electron and one anti-electron (the positron) and if then these two particles are attracted to opposite poles of a magnetic field (in this way they can be separated). If the electron positron pair are allowed to recombine the result is the destruction of the two particles and the release of the two original gamma rays that produced them (the process is circular, going from energy to mass and then back again).

When an electron ‘gains momentum' (absorbs electromagnetic energy) it behaves much like a planet in orbit and rises to higher energy level within an atom. If the electron gains enough of this momentum it behaves much like an accelerating rocket and leaves the ‘orbit' of the atom altogether and becomes a ‘free flying' electron. This leaves the atomic nucleus stripped of electrons, and such a nucleus is said to be ‘ionized' (it has become ‘a charged particle').

Each atomic nucleus is perfectly balanced by a certain number of orbiting electrons, and when this balanced distribution of energy in space is disturbed the nucleus is then described as having become a ‘charged particle'. We can see a relationship that exists here between the idea of ‘charge' and the way that energy occupies and defines ‘space', by bringing to mind Archimedes principle. If a gold crown is dropped into water it displaces an amount of water equivalent to its density. A silver crown of the same shape and size, but of a different density, would displace a different quantity of water. The Inverse Square Law also describes a density distribution obeyed by energy fields (dense at the center with the density declining exponentially the further from the center of the field one looks). Here we can see that a relationship exists between energy and space, in that there can only be so much energy in so much space, or displacement will occur, and similarly there cannot be less energy occupying a certain space or replacement will occur (such is the case will an ionized stripped nucleus, which experiences a deficit of energy, while it is also interesting to see that it continues to occupy the same ‘space').

It would seem that a nucleus can compensate for the loss of ‘momentum' which took place when electrons were lost by ‘gaining momentum' in a different form, by becoming attracted to the lines of force of a magnetic field, where this stripped nucleus will then achieve energy balance by going into orbit.

In the image above we suggest the magnetic field line in yellow, and the strength of the field energy is illustrated by the gradient bar to the right (stronger near the center and then declining in density with distance from field center). We assume that an orbiting ionized nucleus must gain a fixed amount of momentum to compensate for having been stripped of electrons. If a nucleus in to low an orbit (a higher density region of the field) a nucleus must emit ‘synchotron radiation' (which is to say that it must lose momentum) while if a nucleus is in to high an orbit it must gain energy (absorbing ‘synchotron radiation'). When ‘synchotron radiation' is emitted, this is equivalent to a loss of momentum, and when ‘synchotron radiation' is absorbed, this is equivalent to ‘gaining momentum'.

It would seem that the energy balance of an ionized nucleus is relative to the surrounding field density in which such a nucleus is embedded, for it is possible to accelerate a nucleus using a pulsed magnetic field (such as in the Large Hadron Collider). The nucleus ‘gains momentum' as it is pulled towards the source of the magnetic pulse. We can think of the motion of such a charged particle as being a combination of a ‘horizontal' or ‘orbital' motion (around the line of magnetic force) which is then distorted into a spiral path by a ‘vertical' acceleration vector (caused by these repeating electromagnetic pulses, which change the gradient of the field density which then causes motion to occur as the charged particle transfers momentum from the surrounding field).

The assumptions of classical physics (going back to the time of Galileo) are incorporated into the design of a modern particle accelerator, and it is for this reason that we find that our ‘particle accelerators' are actually ‘particle accelerators/decelerators', for the assumptions made by classical physics (the so called ‘law of the conserved momentum') are erroneous. After a charged particle has been accelerated by this electromagnetic pulse, during the interval between pulses it is expected that the particle will coast along at a constant velocity because of its eternally ‘conserved momentum'.

According to the model of the Unified Field Theory, which incorporates an ‘aether field' which is missing in our modern models of theoretical physics, it is motion through the field which is the mechanism by which transfer of momentum from field to field takes place. Any mass which is in motion is in motion because a transfer of momentum is taking place, which means that any mass in motion must be either accelerating or decelerating and cannot be in motion through a gradient field at a fixed and constant velocity. Therefore because a charged particle is not accelerating between electromagnetic pulses, and since it remains in motion, it must be decelerating, and the result of this motion is the loss of momentum in the form of the well known leakage of energy in the form of this ‘synchotron radiation' which is a well known side effect of the design flaw embedded in modern particle accelerators. Not only is this a refutation of classical physics and the errors which are introducing confusion and seemingly insoluble road blocks into our models of theoretical physics, it is also a very good proof of the assumptions of the Unified Field Theory, and its assumption of the existence of this ‘aether field' (the momentum field which permeates what we think of as being ‘the vacuum of three dimensional space', which, as Einstein suggested in his Special Theory of Relativity, is a space with ‘no special properties' and which is ‘homogenous' and therefore ‘the same in all directions', an assumption that proves to be false the very first time a particle decelerator/accelerator was activated).

Scientists have developed the ability to generate single photons. In the following experiment we fire one single photon towards a detector along a ‘horizontal axis'. Now given that the field is a gradient field, with changing density along the vertical axis, we can assume that ‘momentum is conserved' along the horizontal axis (for the field gradient would be constant and unchanging). We measure the energy of this one single photon, and then change the orientation of the device, and this time we fire a photon along the vertical axis, and we notice that so called ‘gravitational red shift' has resulted in a loss of energy in this photon. This suggests that the photon has ‘evaporated' (lost energy) to the surrounding field and that such ‘evaporation' of photons is the means by which momentum is exchanged between mass fields in the universe. We could change the orientation of the device to cause the photon to ‘blue shift' (gain energy) by allowing the photon to move into denser regions of the field (down rather than up).

According to the model of classical physics, the two Pioneer spacecraft should coast along at a constant velocity virtually forever. On the program Cosmos, Carl Sagan described a scenario where aliens might discover our spacecraft in a billion years from now as those spacecraft coast along through space on ‘conserved momentum'. What is actually happening to our spacecraft is that the two Pioneer spacecraft have been decelerating at a fixed and constant rate (a ratio calculated using the value known as ‘Hubble's constant'). The Unified Field model suggests that the Pioneer spacecraft must be emitting low level ‘synchotron radiation', since it would appear that these ‘photons' are the means by which momentum is released and exchanged between momentum fields.

In the following diagram we imagine the design of a super cooled chamber, with a super cooled detector (such super cooling being a requirement if the device is to have the ability to detect extremely weak red shifted radiation). We toss an object upwards so that it will be drained of momentum by the gravitational field effect. According to our hypothesis, such an object must transfer momentum to the ‘earth's gravity field' and the mechanism by which this deceleration must occur is by means of ‘photon evaporation', and so as the object decelerates we would then be able to detect the ‘very weak infrared electromagnetic radiation' all masses emit when decelerating within any mass field.

The Unified Field Model also suggests that it should be possible to reverse this process and cause atoms to ‘jump' (gaining momentum from electromagnetic radiation). Atoms possess this ‘momentum field', just as an amalgamation of mass possesses this ‘gravity field' (as it is called). Just as electromagnetic radiation ‘red shifts' (transfers momentum to this ‘gravity field') so it should also be possible to use a carefully targeted laser to cause atoms to gain momentum and jump as this laser ‘red shifts' when grazing the field around this atom. Since the effect is likely to be subtle it would be required that many photons pass by quickly (as in a laser beam) since the momentum contribution of each red shifted photon is likely to be quite small (due to the tiny red shift effect of the weak momentum field around some atom) and so to create such a jump it would be required that the atom gain the accumulated momentum of many photons to observe such an interesting effect.

A summary of the Unified Field Theory

INDEX