to first edition of
And now, the long-awaited... "THEORY OF EVERYTHING"
Close scrutiny of the first edition has revealed some errors of omission. The most glaring ones are redressed here for inclusion as the last pages of the edition. The author regrets the inconvenience caused to readers.
Back cover. The first bulleted sentence should also contain the words, ‘under perturbations.’ (This will imply that orbital decay due to any so-called gravitational radiation is not at issue here.) The sentence will now read as follows.
Page x. An addendum to Introduction:
In the text, special notes and important equations are given inside single-lined boxes and the many predictions that naturally follow from the theory are inside double-lined boxes.
The author, at the risk of sounding immodest,
strongly feels he knows what he is talking about in these pages. He therefore
found it affordable to use a language that everyone understands. Endeavor has
thus been made to explain every bit in clear, simple prose. If there be a
paragraph or even a sentence anywhere that could have been made more lucid,
please do pull him up. He is only seconds away on:
firstname.lastname@example.org. The reader may also visit his website, www.sittampalam.net, for illustrations and updates:
Page 5. An addendum to Section 1.01 (The Cosmic Microwave Background and Quantum Gravity):
Equation (1.09) expresses the famous inverse-square law of gravity. It has been derived here – for the very first time – from first principles (of classical mechanics).
The equivalent analytical bodies, A1 and A2, will generally be very much larger than the real visible bodies. For the Earth, for example, its analytical body would extend to a great sphere to effectively account also for the particles of the Earth’s lower and upper atmospheres. All these particles associated with the planet (up to the ionosphere and beyond) naturally intercept the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. They then transmit the effect ultimately to the center of the Earth in a simple chain reaction. (Atmospheric pressure is thus caused by the push of the radiation from above and not by the pull of something mystical from below!) This picture should now clear any misgivings we are still prone to harbor from earlier concepts where we associated gravity almost entirely with the bulk and opaque matter.
The gravitational effect of the CMB is thus deep penetrating. This should be no surprise since half the pervasive CMB energy is made up of neutrinos, which we now know to have a deep penetrating effect on matter. (Sections 1.10 and 6.06 give the simple physical model for the hitherto poorly understood neutrino.) Today, the gravitational effect of neutrinos, too, is an empirical fact (and a challenge to current concepts). This is certain to find only overwhelming confirmation in future investigations. [Refer: Reassessment of the reported correlations between gravitational waves and neutrinos associated with SN 1987A, C. A. Dickson and B. F. Schutz, Physical Review D, vol. 51, pp. 2644-2668 (1995).]
Page 10. An addendum to Section 1.06 (Black Holes and Dark Matter):
One may tend to get very skeptical about the downgrading of fusion to secondary status in stars and galaxies. This is quite understandable especially in the light of the monumental work done by
Page 13. The top paragraph here has inadvertently got blanked out at the printing stage. The following is an enhanced version of the missing text.
In a similar manner, the solar-wind particles are sustained by the countergravitational field of the Sun. The neutrinos associated with the origin of these mass particles go to contribute to the CMB in the long range. In the short range, they contribute much to the Sun’s countergravitational field. This propitious effect has kept planet Earth safely at bay from the solar inferno and has given time for the evolution of man.
We are now oblivious to the countergravitational influence of the Sun. It is little wonder, therefore, that the long-time stability of the solar system should still be a great mystery to physicists. Questions that are related to this stability of the ages remain unanswered to date. The questions involve a fundamental unsolved problem of celestial mechanics and also of dynamics: whether or not some characteristics of unperturbed, highly idealized elliptic orbits will survive slight perturbations that last for a long time. Gravitational forces are not the only effects influencing the orbits of the members of the solar system. Atmospheric drag, radiation pressure, and others must be considered as well. These forces are negligible at any instant, but their cumulative action for several billions of years may influence planetary motion significantly.
Consider the Earth under a perturbative outward pull. This tends to take the Earth away from the Sun. The gravitational tug on the Earth is in opposition here to the perturbative effect. Thus, when the perturbative effect wanes, the tendency is for the Earth to return to its earlier stable orbit. (It cannot be ruled out, though, that the Earth could remain at the higher orbit with a change in orbital speed, or even leave its orbit altogether and drift out of solar space. Fortunately, the pull of the Sun has been sufficient to let the latter not happen, at least to those planets that still survive today in the solar system.) Consider, next, the Earth under a perturbative inward pull. Both the gravitational and perturbative forces are now in the same direction. This can easily become a run-away effect. The Earth here experiences a greater gravitational pull from the closer Sun. Under this unrelenting and increased inward tug, the Earth has no way of returning to its outer stable orbit even if the inward perturbative effect should now completely cease. (True, the Earth could remain in the lower orbit with the required speed change and synchronism with the rest of the system; but such coincidences over the eons may be totally ruled out.) And this is where the (also increased) countergravitational field of the Sun comes in to give the Earth the required gentle radial boost and staying power against an inward spiral.
Thus, the long-sought answer to the long-time stability of the solar system is, literally – blowing in the solar wind.
Page 18. An addendum to Section 1.17 (The Dinosaur):
Great cataclysms, with disturbing regularity, bring life on planet Earth to the brink of extinction again and again. There are few things as certain as these in the geologic record of Earth. Yet, few things are as controversial in the science of Earth as the effort to identify the mechanisms responsible for these catastrophes. In the most devastating extinction event, which occurred at the juncture of the Permian and Triassic periods 250 million years ago, life on Earth was almost completely wiped out. Known to paleontologists as "The Great Dying," 80% or more of all species in the ocean and 70% of all vertebrate families on land disappeared forever. Caused by flood basalts, which are large outpourings of magma (up to millions of cubic kilometers) that occur in a relatively short period of time (few million years), it was the closest that organic life has ever come to being erased completely from the planet.
Scientists now have pieced together evidence of yet another flood basalt at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary 200 million years ago. They see it as the largest sustained volcanic eruption in Earth’s history – so powerful it split an ancient supercontinent (called Pangaea that once stretched, unbroken, from pole to pole) and created the Atlantic Ocean. The eruption set the fractured landmasses adrift – to give the map of the world the form it has today. It spewed millions of square kilometers of searing lava that extinguished much of life on ancient Earth. In the space perhaps of just a few million years, half of all marine species died and so did almost as many species of reptiles and other land animals.
This set the stage for the age of the dinosaurs and the evolution of the first mammals.
Three mass extinctions now have been linked
with such massive continental eruptions. These gigantic, igneous events seem to
have occurred each in an amazingly brief period of time; and it has never been
appreciated before that these constitute single events. Most well known,
perhaps, is the extinction event that involved the demise of the dinosaurs at
the end of the Cretaceous some 65 million years ago (see main text). This
cleared the world stage for the rise of mammals and, eventually, humanity
itself. [Refer: Giant lava flows, mass extinctions, and mantle plumes,
Thus, mass extinctions, which have plagued Earth repeatedly since the dawn of time, were caused not primarily by collisions with comets or errant asteroids – but by the fierce internal volcanics of the planet itself. Each time, rivers of magma flowed from many individual volcanic cones around the globe, all feeding from the same vast plume of subterranean molten rock. As the lava boiled over the landscape, continent-sized clouds of toxic fumes and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide steamed into the atmosphere. While the lava itself could have triggered a global conflagration, the gases, too, disrupted the environment further by triggering drastic ecological changes and altering the world climate. And the prime mover to wreak all this havoc: Nuclear fission, stepped up around the Earth’s central core at resonance.
The planet’s solid inner core is surrounded by an outer core of molten radioactive material. When a natural frequency of vibration or oscillation of the solid core attains synchronism with its own spin frequency, a large amplitude of oscillation of the core results (like a poorly balanced car wheel acting up at a certain critical speed). This creates a relatively rarefied space between the solid and liquid cores – only to enhance breakdown of the fissile liquid-core material in the newly created space. Lower the damping effect on the inner core at resonance, greater is its amplitude of oscillation and more devastating the effect seeping out into the open; the basic mechanism remaining the same for the nova and the supernova (see Sections 1.13 and 1.14).
Page 23. An addendum to Section 1.20 (The Two-Slit Experiment):
If a photon has an energy, it has also a momentum. Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field states that if a portion of the field traveling in a given direction has an energy E, its momentum P is given by P = E/c in that direction.
Consider a single photon of energy E zipping
through the vacuum of space. Its frequency f will be given by the
This photonic frequency f, as we saw in Sections 1.18 and 2.01, is the frequency of the 'per-cycle' particles, or radiatons, constituting the single photon; and these perfectly elastic radiatons are the agents that vibrationally effect the momentum transfer, at frequency f and wavelength l (= c/f), in a chain reaction through the energy medium that is the classical vacuum (see also Figure 7, page 187).
Now, the perfectly elastic radiatons of the isotropic CMB field would have the same wavelength, lo, in any direction. On the other hand, radiatons of, say, the light photon, would have a wavelength, l, that is shorter than lo. A vibrational imbalance in the vacuum field is thus eventuated by the light photon, not only in the direction of its propagation but also transverse thereto, that is, due to the simple fact that l ≠ lo in any direction. This transverse disturbance through the vacuum field, of course, is effected by the particle’s transverse energy (and momentum).
Thus, in reality, the particle energy traveling in a given direction has the effect of a wavefront of energy traveling in that direction.
And it is this ‘organized’ propagating
imbalance in the vacuum field that gives the energy particle its
Note: In a (transparent) material medium, the transverse amplitudes of the light photon generally get more restricted. In a crystal, they can also become confined preferentially to planes, which results in the phenomenon called polarization (see Section 7.15).
From equations E = hf,
P = E/c, and c = fl, we get l =
h/P for the (speed-c) photon. In 1923,
These insights should now help resolve the seeming paradox that is the wave-particle duality.
Notes for ‘Two-Slit’ Experimenters:
(a) A bright fringe is where two strips of energy wavefronts, one from each slit, strike the area simultaneously. (The energy particles constituting the two strips laterally squeeze each other onto the same bright-fringe area.) This increased intensity, of course, intensely excites atomic levels at the source (primary) frequency along that strip. A dark fringe, on the other hand, is where such energy strips strike the area ALTERNATELY (that is, staggered evenly in time) – mimicking an energy at twice primary frequency. This frequency-doubling effectively removes the excited atomic levels from visibility. (As you will find from the energy spectrum, twice any visible frequency would fall off the visible band.) Since the primary frequency, too, is present in this area, atomic levels are excited also at this (visible) frequency. However, the excited atoms here will be low in number due to the energy drain at the other (invisible) frequency. Under magnification, therefore, a dark fringe should still be seen to have a sprinkling of bright spots (that is, be sparsely bright). If energy is indeed canceled by the coincident peaks and troughs in this region – as currently misconceived with an analogy to surface waves on water – there should be a distinct central line of total darkness.
(b) This is a corollary to (a) but should serve as the conclusive test of the prediction here. An invisible energy, say, of 1.10 micron wavelength (infrared) will double in frequency to show visible fringes, that is, at 0.55 micron (green). A high-intensity monochromatic source (a well-tuned laser), though, will be required for a visible effect on the screen or photographic plate due to the energy drain at the primary (invisible) frequency.
Thus, Young's experiment would now become a
simple and straightforward demonstration of the CORPUSCULAR, or particlelike, nature of light. The cause for the photon's
wavelike propagation through the vacuum energy field is explained in the text
above. [See report on a latest two-slit experiment: Waves, particles and
Page 31, Section 2.06 (The Spin). For clarity, the words ‘radially and’ should be included in (b), to read as follows:
(b) The constituent radiatons of the space are all vibrant at speed c and also radially and isotropically with respect to the center of the space.
Page 35. An addendum to Section 2.06 (The Spin):
In this hypothetical volume, the central nucleus (of sub-c radiatons) may exist only under the pressure, or energy density, of the outside speed-c radiatons. The ratio of the number of speed-c radiatons to the number of nucleons will be a constant over a nuclear vibrational cycle at steady state. It will also be indicative of such a ratio in our own universe for the existence of classical matter. That is, speed-c radiatons per nucleon in the analytical volume will be a constant and would be comparable to that of our observable cosmic space. This factor, a pure number, is usually identified with entropy in physics theory today.
The amount of photon entropy per individual proton is called the specific entropy. It is roughly the ratio of photons to all heavy subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons within an arbitrary volume. The specific entropy at any point provides a measure of the local entropy. The value now reckoned for the universe is about 1010 if we count only photons and the luminous matter content of the universe. This ratio is large compared with the specific entropies of familiar systems of radiation and matter and even those encountered in common astrophysical objects like stars or nebulae. For instance, stars produce large amounts of entropy. The amount generated by the Sun during its entire lifetime is about 106 photons per nucleon. A supernova explosion generates somewhat more entropy, perhaps as much as 107 photons per nucleon, still well short of the cosmic value. This immediately tells us that the cosmic background radiation could not have been produced by astrophysical sources that resemble the objects we now see in our galaxy. Some far more exotic source must be sought – like the cosmic cores to dot our universe (Sections 1.12 and 8.01). Thus, cosmic cores, though they may remain permanently shrouded from view, still do reveal themselves to us in other ways. This time around, they do so to explain yet another observational reality that is the entropy of the cosmos.
Page 77. An addendum to Section 4.14 (Relative Motion of Source and Observer):
The Transversal Doppler Effect. An energy source S moves with uniform velocity in absolute space, the space of the CMB. The wavelength of the energy S emits along its line of motion is different from the wavelength of an identical quantum it emits transverse to motion. Section 4.07 revealed to us these absolute facts now in the vacuum energy field. Section 4.08 then told us that this (absolute) anisotropy is not measurable by any physical means in the frame of S. However, in another reference frame, say, at rest in absolute space, it should become detectable, though it may still pose a challenge.
For instance, if the receiver R is in the line of motion (fore or aft) of S, the intrinsic longitudinal shift due to absolute motion will be overwhelmed by the Doppler shift due to relative motion of S and R. From this, practically nothing may be gleaned for the intrinsic shift. On the other hand, however, when detection is made transverse to motion, the Doppler shift due to relative motion would become zero at that instant of zero radial velocity of S with respect to R. The result should then become clean-cut and conclusive for the intrinsic transverse shift – to also ratify now the transverse contraction of moving bodies.
This transverse redshift in wavelength has indeed been observed in experiments and is now generally attributed to a ‘relativistic’ effect called The Transversal Doppler Effect.
In our investigations here, though, our explanations need no intriguing labels or arcane language to command respect or acceptance. The ‘relativistic’ cover is no longer in vogue. It may be doffed and all its ad hoc hypotheses dispensed with. From zero velocity to c, all explanations now are classical mechanical, pure and simple.
Let v be the velocity of S and let it emit radiation of a definite frequency f, or wave period t. In the frame of S, let the energy emanating in the longitudinal and transverse directions have wavelengths l and l', respectively. Thus, from Section 4.07 and Equation (4.05), a receiver R, at rest along the line of travel of S, will detect the energy arriving at time intervals of t (= 1/f) given by,
t = 1/f = lc/(c2 – v2) (4.32)
that is, after the Doppler shift in frequency due to relative motion of S and R has been eliminated.
From Equation (4.06), R, at rest but along the line transverse to the motion of S, will register the energy coming in at the same time intervals of t and given by,
t = 1/f = l'/(c2 – v2) 1/2 (4.33)
that is, at the instant the radial velocity of S with respect to R is zero. [Note: In the frame of S, the wave period t (= 1/f) is common in all directions for the energy, unlike its wavelength and speed (Section 4.07).]
From Equations (4.32) and (4.33), we will then have,
l' = l(1 – v2/c2) -1/2 (4.34)
This is the so-called transversal Doppler effect, which has been observed in the laboratory.
Physicists today do not recognize the transverse contraction of bodies caused by motion, nor the anisotropy in light propagation in moving inertial frames. Hence, in the experimenter’s rest frame, they would say the velocity of light is c and that c = f l along the line of motion of S (after correcting for Doppler shift due to relative motion of S and R). In the transverse direction, in a like manner, they would say c = f 'l'. Equation (4.34) would then transpose as f ' = f(1– v2/c2) 1/2, which is perhaps the popular form currently seen in textbooks expressing the transversal Doppler effect [see, for instance: Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1965) pp. 301-302].
The equation, f ' = f(1 – v2/c2) 1/2, though, is fundamentally incorrect since c is
strictly in reference to absolute space, which is the case in Equation (4.34),
and not in reference to any frame moving in absolute space.
Page 170. An addendum to Section 8.01 (The Structure of the Universe):
As the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations now overwhelmingly confirm, galaxies dot the universe even at the deepest levels of observable space. Not only did the HST capture new galaxies, but it also got a better look at some of the lumpy ones that had been seen before. Seen in the infrared, they look more like "normal" galaxies, like those in our own cosmic neighborhood. Clearly, these latest pictures of the deep field show only support for a steady-state universe. The next generation of probes, though, should transcend to remove for all time any doubts that may still linger in the field. [Refer, for instance: Galaxies Seen at the Universe’s Dawn, G. Schilling, Science, vol. 283, pp. 19 and 21 (1999).]
Whatever be the cosmic object, the farther it is, the greater will be the redshift of any of its energy reaching us (see the all-important Section 1.19 on cosmological redshift). In principle, therefore, the ultimate signals we may receive even from quasars lying at the extremity of our observation will have effectively redshifted only to appear to us as – the CMB. (Even gamma rays originally emitted by the object will appear thus to us.) Hence, it cannot at all be concluded from any such observation of "emptiness" that we are indeed looking at the edge of space (or a region corresponding to the time of the "big bang") where there would be no matter. In other words, our observations have bounds, a physical limit. No matter how advanced our instruments and techniques are now or at any time in the future, all celestial bodies beyond a certain critical distance from us will fail to produce a signal above the CMB.
The concept of the conservation of energy would also suggest a steady-state universe. Until only recently as a decade ago, it was difficult to reconcile all of the observed data to a steady-state universe. But, now, the powerful telescopes of the present day throw to us much more light than they receive. Taken in proper perspective, we are indeed no different to creatures who may well be living on an orbital electron of an atom at the center of a grain of sand on our beach. These ‘normal’ and ‘intelligent’ beings look up in wonderment and awe at the numerous ‘star clusters’ (molecules) and ‘galaxies’ (grains) around them. Through their sophisticated instruments, they also observe a general redshift in energy – the farther they peer into space, the more the reddening (see Section 1.19 for the fundamental cause for cosmological redshift). They then draw their profound conclusion about space and time and submit the report to the prestigious journal, Grain: "The universe on the large scale is isotropic and homogeneous; it extends to the depth of a few million galaxies in any one direction; these systems are all generally receding from each other; and nothing exists beyond the farthest systems that we now see, as that would correspond to a time when the universe began out of a point of sheer nothingness, a singularity." What proof now have we humans to say this is nonsensical; that we are unique; and only we are capable of making such statements since the universe that we see is all that there is? ˙
– END OF ADDENDA –
27 April 2007