A Unified Field Theory
A summary of the Unified Field Theory
A summary of the Unified Field Theory
A spacecraft travels at close to the speed of light and covers a distance of '30 Lighthours', and an
outside observer sees that the craft takes almost 30 hours to make the trip. However, an astronaut
on board the spacecraft experiences the effects of 'time dilation' (his clock 'slows down') and so
it seems to him that the trip took only one hour.
If we assume that the 'distance' was a fixed constant, then the astronaut must conclude that he made
the trip at '30 times faster than the speed of light' (for he apparently covered the distance of '30
Lighthours' in 'one hour'). If we assume that the speed of light was a fixed constant then our
astronaut must assume that the distance covered was 'one light hour'.
After comparing the difference between the two clocks, both observers
agree that the distance must have remained fixed at 30 Lighthours, and that the 'speed of light' was
never exceeded, and also remained a fixed constant, while both observers agree to disagree
concerning the relative time displayed by the clocks.
This is Albert Einstein's classical interpretation of the principle of relativity (classical because it
preserves both distance and the 'speed of light' as fixed and invariant constants, as classical
physics requires, and assigns relativity only to the time displayed by the clock).
A space traveler on a craft moving at high velocity experiences this ‘time dilation' which is to say that ‘time slows down' for such a traveler. But it could be also be said that the distance such a traveler has covered has contracted (a shorter path) and the effect is similar to a rapid passage of time.
Here we have examples of two relative frames of reference. If we look at things from the perspective of the space traveler the distance has become shorter and time has not ‘dilated' but rather time has ‘sped up'. It is only from the frame of reference of an observer on earth that the distance appears to have ‘dilated' and time has also ‘dilated' and is passing much more slowly for the space traveler, while it is the clock on earth which has ‘sped up'.
One of a pair of exact identical twins travels to a nearby galaxy at very close to the speed of light.
His onboard clock slows down such that the astronaut only experiences the passage of two months
in making the round trip back to earth. When he returns he finds that tens of millions of years have
passed on earth and that his exact identical twin is now fossilized much like the dinosaurs were.
This is the potential future of space flight in Einstein's classical universe.
'Time Contraction' would be a phenomenon which was the 'mirror image' of 'Time Dilation'.
We can imagine an exact identical twin heading off on the same space journey, only to take a
vacation from work, and return to earth in order to celebrate their parent's anniversary. The
vacation over the first twin would then head back to work.
We can get used to this screwy sounding 'time dilated clock', because Einstein's interpretation
was 'classical' and for that reason it makes a powerful appeal to 'simple common sense'. As
Einstein himself summarized his 'philosophy of science', 'all of science is just the refinement of
everyday thinking.' We do not include 'time contraction' in our sciences, for if time contraction
exists then that means that not only do we have a weird screwy clock we also have weird screwy
distances separating two points in space, and that would be very non-classical, and an offense to
everyday human common sense. We all know that when something is very far away, that means it is
very far away, and it just stays put. Distant objects remain fixed at invariant points in something
The Relativity of ‘Space-Time'
If we drop objects into increasingly stronger ‘gravity fields' associated with increasingly larger masses, the objects experience increased acceleration, with the effect growing in magnitude as the field strength increases. The effect created is similar to the constant relative decrease in the length of the path as the field strength increases (for the acceleration observed generates increasingly shorter times during which this accelerating motion occurs). We should expect this pattern to continue to be made manifest up until we reach the very largest masses in the universe (such as the postulated ‘black hole') which would then become the very shortest path in the universe. We would expect such an object dropped into such a powerful field to reach a nearly ‘infinite velocity' and impact the surface of such a massive hole in a virtually ‘instantaneous time' (this effect being the manifestation of the fact that this was the shortest path in the universe).
The animation above is intended to suggest the effects of ‘gravitational acceleration' upon bodies moving through increasingly shorter paths generated by increasingly stronger fields. In the time that it takes the first object to cover the distance, the second object has covered the distance three times, and the third object, in an even stronger field, has covered the same distance five times. As the field strength increases we should expect the effect to continue to be magnified, until we reach the very strongest fields in the universe (the very largest mass fields) where the path would become the shortest path and the time generated by this motion would become the very shortest time.
An objection will be raised at this point, based upon our experience with particle accelerators, for we all know that at the very highest energy levels, the path becomes the longest path in the universe. We know this, for at high energy levels, time dilation generates a dilation of distance, just as it does within the Large Hadron Collider, and so therefore the path into some enormous gravitational hole would become very dilated, this being a very high energy hole, and would then become the very longest path in the universe. Apparently this gravitational acceleration can then only operate at low energy levels and does not occur at the high energy levels because of the dilation of distance that always occurs when time dilates for high energy masses.
We illustrate the effects of this ‘distance-time dilation' upon an object dropped into a truly massive ‘gravity hole' by including the observed path of such an object on the far right. As you can see, according to the interpretation of standard relativity theory accepted by our sciences today, such an object is not moving at all, for we have reached the very highest energy levels. To an observer such an object dropped into such a powerful hole would appear to hang in space motionless, for time has dilated so much and the distance has become so enormously dilated at the same time, that it would take billions of years for the object to be observed to fall down into the hole and impact the surface. Perhaps if an observer came back in a million years the object might seem to have moved an inch during that time. The time dilation is just that enormous and the dilation of distance into that hole has become so great that such a massive gravity hole has now become the very longest path in the universe. We can be quite certain that this unexpected and completely anomalous sounding result is in fact the correct interpretation, for we must move the goal posts farther away in the Large Hadron Collider because at these high energy levels the time dilation causes the dilated distance observed to increase by 30 times. In such a massive gravity hole, no doubt the same dilation would increase the distance by billions of times, thus generating such a strange and unexpected effect as illustrated in the animation just above.
A mass suspended in a gravity field will experience a constant 'acceleration force' (if you are
reading this while sitting in a chair, you can feel yourself constantly 'accelerating' into the seat
cushion of the chair, for you are in 'virtual motion'. If you were to jump off a cliff, you would
promptly begin to move through the field, for no debris field would remain to impede your
A beam of light is sent from one side of a moving elevator to another. The effect is exaggerated in
the image above. The light beam will strike the opposite of the elevator at a spot lower than the
spot where the original emission occurred. According to an observer within the elevator, the light
followed a curved path, similar to the curved path light follows in a gravity
If we imagine an observer in a sealed box viewing a ‘curved beam of light', we could then conclude that such an observer would be unable to determine whether the box was an ‘accelerating elevator' or whether the box was located within a gravity field, for in both cases the results would be the same (the beam of light would curve).
If the energy of a photon is measured and then the same photon is measured when following a vertical path up through a gravity field, the photon loses energy to the gravity field (it redshifts). This suggests that the energy of a ‘gravity field' and the energy of ‘a photon' are equivalent and interchangeable (which is just another way of saying that a relationship exists between a ‘gravity field' and an ‘electromagnetic field' for the photon is just the mediating particle of electromagnetism). We know that such an exchange of energy is real, for whenever energy is exchanged by means of motion through the ‘warped space' of a ‘gravity field' the result is always expressed in the form of a change of momentum (examples of this would include the ‘flyby maneuver' which NASA employs as a substitute for rocket fuel when accelerating spacecraft, and we also know that small fragments from comets generate an explosive impact on the surfaces of such bodies as Jupiter due to the energetic impact such accelerated objects experience when in motion through the spatial field).
We assume that the field surrounding a mass must therefore be the momentum field of the mass (which is manifest in the form our brains interpret as being ‘the empty vacuum of space, which is another way of saying that ‘conserved momentum' has what we might interpret as being a ‘physical' representation in the universe in the form of a warped space field, a field which is warped due to the fact that all such energy fields have a density distribution corresponding to the inverse square law). A photon exchanges energy with the 'momentum field' surrounding a mass (AKA the gravitational
field) and for this reason we conclude that the 'momentum field' can be thought as being very
similar to an 'immobilized large photon field' which is attached to the mass
We can imagine such an accelerating energy field behaving in a manner similar to a mass, which also experiences a constant acceleration force upon a gravitational body. In the case of the field acceleration, which assume that the direction of this ‘virtual acceleration' must be in the opposite direction to that of a mass, given the behavior of bending light waves within the field. The field must be attempting to accelerate away from the mass, while remaining attached to the mass (immobilized) which must then generate a constant ‘field acceleration'. Given that such fields associated with mass fields (or attached to mass fields) always have a density distribution corresponding to the inverse square law, we can postulate that this distribution is a consequence of field acceleration (with the acceleration being most intense near the center of the mass field and falling off and losing intensity with distance). This would also include so called ‘electromagnetic fields' since all such fields are always generated by mass fields (examples of this principle would include the mass associated with radio broadcasting equipment or the mass of the simple bar magnet).
If a 'momentum field' ('gravity field' or 'warped space') resembles a large photon, given that
photons are the quantized energy packages associated with the electromagnetic field, we can
conclude that the 'momentum field' attached to a mass has properties similar to a bar magnet (and
that a bar magnet generates a localized field disturbance within a much larger field). The field of a
bar magnet resembles an electromagnetic field absent the property of time (it is static and
motionless) and possesses the 'wave like' properties of the moving electromagnetic field, although
it is static (for this field is firmly anchored to the mass of the bar magnet which generates the field,
in much the same way that a 'momentum field' much remain anchored to a mass).
If we imagine the ‘momentum field' consisting of ‘concentric rings' and we imagine an object moving through such a field at a position somewhere around 10 O'clock, then we can see how such a field acceleration would require that such an object follow an increasingly warped and curved path.
We can think of the transfer of momentum which occurs when an object is in motion through an accelerating field to be similar to the transfer of energy that occurs from the surplus to the deficit energy zones in a common battery cell.
As the object moves into varying density regions of the field the result is similar to the creation of a ‘momentum voltage' resulting in the flow of ‘momentum current'. An object which ‘falls up' in the field, such as hydrogen or helium, decelerates as it rises into lower density regions of the field, while an object which ‘falls down' in the field, such as iron, accelerates as it falls. The transfer of energy that takes place by means of the mechanism of motion through this warped spatial field is quite real, as we can see when spacecraft are accelerated or small comet fragments impact Jupiter, and we can assume that a similar loss of energy would be seen if a rising, decelerating object was to impact another object...the impact of the collision would be reduced.
‘Field acceleration' is required to explain certain anomalous effects generated when momentum is transferred by means of a ‘gravity field', for if it was simply true that there was a straightforward transfer of momentum taking place in order to maintain field equality (which would then make the field transfer similar to that we see in a battery, where there is a definite current associated with a particular voltage state) then we would expect to see objects which are falling through the field moving at similar rates at identical locations within the field. However this is not what we see, for if an object is dropped close to the surface of the field it might raise a small dust cloud when it impacts the surface, while the exact same object, dropped from a great height, would become a high velocity flaming projectile which would generate an explosive impact upon reaching the surface of the gravitating body. The higher the point at which the motion begins, the greater the acceleration effect and the greater the final velocity of the object when it impacts the surface. Such a phenomenon cannot be fully explained by a simple analogy being made to the common battery cell.
We know that 'time dilation' occurs in tandem with a corresponding 'dilation of distance' (for as
time 'dilates' (and passes 'more slowly') it is also true that distance also dilates and becomes
longer (as this distance is perceived from a reference frame of an outside observer, whose frame
we will consider to be 'the frame at rest' and not in motion relative to the moving
We can also see a ‘dilation of distance' which occurs when an object is moving through a ‘decelerating field' (‘falling up' rather than ‘falling down' in gravity field). Objects which fall up experience ‘deceleration', which is equivalent to a dilation of distance.
Objects which move up in a gravity field lose energy to the field, and in the above diagram we picture the two Pioneer spacecraft losing momentum energy to the field of the sun as the two spacecraft rise in the sun's gravity field.
Objects that gain momentum (‘become more buoyant') rise in the field and are found to lose velocity as they rise in the field, and therefore are in slower orbits than high speed objects orbiting lower in the field.
Such an effect could be understood as being the consequence of ‘loss of field inertia' (the assumption being made here is that both the momentum of the field and the momentum of the object in motion through a mass field play a role in motion through such fields, which is another way of saying that it takes two to tango, and that ‘space' is no a neutral factor when it comes to the expression of momentum in the form of motion through such fields). A mass in a higher orbit has ‘increased inertia' (it has become ‘heavier' and thus harder to push) while at the same time the ‘field inertia' has decreased (and therefore the field has become weaker and less able to push, resulting in a slower orbit, with such a slower orbit being equivalent to a dilated (or longer) path).
The two Pioneer spacecraft are decelerating a steady rate (with the ratio of the rate of deceleration equivalent to a value calculated which is numerically equivalent to ‘Hubble's constant', a measure of redshift employed by cosmologists, a fact which cannot be merely coincidental). We assume that our space scientists understand that a gravitational loss of momentum occurs when objects are in motion upwards through a gravitational field, and it is this extra, and thus unexplained deceleration which is the problem. We can interpret this phenomenon as evidence for ‘field deceleration' and is one of the consequences of motion through such a ‘decelerating field' and the consequent loss of field inertia which occurs.
An equivalence appears to exist between ‘field deceleration' and ‘distance dilation'. The two spacecraft are in effect following a longer dilating path as they rise through a decelerating field (the deceleration of the spacecraft then generating an anomalous Doppler shift, which suggests that radio transmissions are blue shifting, implying a steady constant loss of velocity). If we assume that the apparent ‘loss of velocity' is a field generated effect, then this implies a relative dilation of the path, which is then interpreted as ‘loss of velocity' and generates a corresponding anomalous blue shift (for the momentum of the craft generates a corresponding lower velocity for the distance is dilating).
We can see a similar effect being generated within the Large Hadron Collider, where a highly energetic accelerated particle moves up out of the powerful center of the electromagnetic accelerating field and out into the ‘normal low energy space' of the outside observer, and the consequence of this motion through a decelerating field is that the goal posts must be physically moved 30 times further away, for the ‘time dilation' experienced by the high energy particle, expresses itself in the form of a dilation of distance (the particle, we are told, will live 30 times longer, according to our ‘faster clock', and interestingly enough, it will then proceed to travel 30 times further...if we assume that the particle was moving at close to the speed of light, 300,000 kilometers per second, then it would appear that the meaning of ‘kilometer' or the meaning of ‘one second' is determined by the reference frame of the observer, for one second in ‘our time' does not mean the same thing as ‘one second' in this ‘dilated time' of the particle, which means that a kilometer in one reference frame does not mean the same thing as a kilometer in the other, for time dilation is equivalent to the dilation of distance.
An object falling into an enormous gravitational hole (such as the postulated ‘black hole') would be an object moving into an accelerating field, and for this reason we would expect the phenomenon of ‘distance contraction' to occur (this becomes the shortest path in the universe). The Large Hadron Collider might be a good model for the deceleration and dilation of distance we see in such phenomenon as the Pioneer effect (for both involve objects in motion through ‘decelerating fields') but the LHC is a very poor model for the expected behavior of objects falling into enormous gravity fields, where the field inertia becomes tremendously powerful and where we would then expect such a contraction of the path length to be the most logical end result.
However this conclusion can only be accepted by those who accept that space is an energy field (or to put it another way, this conclusion can only be accepted by those who have concluded that the once rejected ‘aether hypothesis' is the correct hypothesis, for those who reject the aether drop objects into ‘black holes' in slow motion, for their model lacks any concept of ‘field acceleration' or ‘field inertia').
Consideration of these matters leads us to questions concerning the relationship that must exist between this ‘speed of light' (as it is called) and the velocity of masses in motion, for it would appear that when the relative speed of light increases (relative to a mass in motion) the result is always expressed in the form of a contraction of distance and a corresponding contraction of time, while when the relative ‘speed of light' decreases relative to a mass in motion through a field, this is always expressed in the form of both distance and time dilation. It is worth noting as well that these effects of ‘dilation' or ‘contraction' are relative to the frame of reference of an observer, which is to say that if an observer was able to ‘stand outside' and watch, the observer would then either see dilation (such as in the Large Hadron Collider) or contraction (such as when we watch comet fragments accelerate and impact the surface of Jupiter).
If we assume that the ‘accelerating momentum field' (also known as the gravity field) possesses properties very similar to that of a ‘standing wave' then we can see that as an object accelerates through such a field, the effect that this generates is an increasing ‘blue shift' (a similar effect would also be generated if the object in motion was to encounter light waves in motion, since the object would move through the approaching wave fronts with increasing velocity, generating ever greater blue shifts). Therefore we would conclude that the rate of the transfer of momentum must increase if an object begins to move through the field at increasingly greater heights, as it is experiences the equivalent of ‘contraction of distance' as it encounters the wave fronts of the field with ever increasing velocity. The further away the object is from the surface of the gravitating body, the greater the effect becomes with compounding acceleration effects occurring which then generates an effect equivalent to a dilation of distance (for the further away the object is the greater the contraction of both distance and time becomes due to this compounding acceleration effect).
We would also expect the opposite effect to be generated if an object was decelerating while rising through such a field, which would result in a ‘dilation of distance and time' as the encounters with the wave front decrease generating an equivalent redshift as the rate of momentum transfer decreases.
Experimental Verification of the Field Acceleration Hypothesis
It is typical for spacecraft to be sent out on a trajectory which will meet up with and intersect the future orbital position of a planet such as Jupiter.
For the purposes of ‘transfer of momentum' we make the assumption that ‘what you see is what you are getting'. As we know it might take an hour for momentum transfer to take place between Jupiter and the Earth, at which time Jupiter would have moved on its orbit and would no longer be in the apparent position that we see from earth. However, we assume that since momentum transfer can only occur between the earth and the visible Jupiter, therefore we aim our spacecraft directly at the visible Jupiter, our object being to generated anomalous acceleration effects by ‘falling into Jupiter'. The effect should increase in intensity the closer we get to Jupiter, with the increasing yellow lines intended to suggest the increased transfer of momentum to out spacecraft as it moves ever deeper into Jupiter's accelerating momentum field.
According to my calculations, and assuming only classical effects occur (and no anomalous distance or time effects occur) it would be possible to reach Jupiter in as little as 42 days using this technique (assuming that the spacecraft began the trip with a velocity equivalent to that of the Pioneer spacecraft when they made the trip to Jupiter and the attempt was made to reach Jupiter at that time of the year when the orbit of the earth around the sun brought the earth into line with Jupiter's position (both Jupiter and the earth would be on the same side of the sun, which would shorten the path length). A craft traveling at the velocity of the space shuttle should be able to make the trip in about three months.
The above calculation ignores the effects of ‘distance contraction' and the corresponding contraction of time which we would expect to see occurring. I would call this the ‘speed of light' effect, for if the speed of light is to remain ‘constant' then it is required that the distance contract, which is to say that the distance through the field will ‘blue shift'. Such a ‘blue shift' of the path through the field would be required for the ‘speed of light' is a function of the frequency and the wavelength.
What is yet missing is the precise mathematical formulation describing this ‘distance-time contraction effect'. According to my most recent attempt to come up with such a formula such a trip to Jupiter should generate an anomalous ‘time contraction' effect of approximately three hours (which is to say that the craft would arrive at Jupiter three hours earlier than expected if such a craft was to follow a truly ‘classical path'). However I am not confident that this mathematical equation is correct, for the graph it generates appears to be incorrect. It should be more non-linear than it is.
Quantum Entanglement and the Transfer of Momentum
A spacecraft traveling at a certain velocity emits an electromagnetic signal towards a detector which is the ‘relative rest frame' in this example (from the perspective of the detector, it is at rest while it is the rocket which appears to be in motion through the field). The light emitted by the rocket travels towards the detector at ‘the speed of light' and the time this takes is indicated by the blue bar. At the same time the rocket is moving away from the position at which this emission occurred and covers a certain distance indicated by the white bar. The receiver finally receives a ‘stretched' or ‘redshifted' signal. If the original signal was ‘stretched' to accommodate the distance covered by the craft, the signal would ‘red shift' (it would be of a lower frequency and the wavelength would increase). This suggests that the Doppler effect is not a measure of ‘velocity' but rather a measure of the dilation of distance, and if this is true then it would mean that quantum entanglement occurs during the transfer of momentum, for a transmission of momentum from a source to a receiver follows a path which remains permanently entangled with the emitting mass.
If quantum entanglement is the correct explanation for the Doppler effect (velocity red or blue shifts) then it follows that the visible path to any mass field is only the apparent path, and that the actual path to the field follows a curved path (relative to the outside observer on a body such as earth). The reason for this curvature of the path is that the momentum path remained entangled with the emitting source, and the source was no longer at the apparent visible location. This would then result in an anomalous velocity related red (or blue) shift and would also generate an anomalous trajectory followed by any spacecraft which followed an ‘entangled path' towards a body such as Jupiter (as the effect of momentum transfer from Jupiter had an increasing influence over the approaching space craft, we would expect to see not only time related anomalies but also an anomalous curvature in the trajectory of such a craft).