Questions & Answers

on
And now, the long-awaited... "THEORY OF EVERYTHING" 
by Eugene Sittampalam


Page reviewed 31 October 2005


Welcome to the page of answers!

Questions to the author by e-mail [eugenesittampalam (at) gmail.com] are normally answered within a few days.

Some Q’s are reproduced in this page and the A’s elaborated on for the benefit of readers here.

Only the title or initials of the writer and place of origin of letter are identified with the query.

 

Critical questions and remarks are the ones most appropriate for inclusion in this page

since the answers would help others, too, to understand the theory that much better.

So, keep the brickbats a-flinging – the fiercer they seem a-coming, the better!


Q.  A Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Louisiana State University, USA, writes in response to a letter:

I went to your web page, and it was completely garbled, with random symbols, and no working links. I could not connect to any of the promised accounts of your "theory of everything" and its claimed connection between earthquakes (or tsunamis) and gravity wave detectors. If you do not have the ability to get a website to work, why should I (or anyone) take seriously your claim to have solved some of the most difficult and profound problems in physics?

A.  Please accept my humble apologies for the inconvenience you experienced trying to access my web pages. The pages were prepared in MS Word, Excel and PDF formats. I found Excel to be good for figures, but they do open garbled at times. Clicking ‘Refresh’ usually rectifies the problem. Do please try the links again but using a computer with a Windows operating system. (I remember Macintosh computers to give the problem you mention; I’m trying now to get around this difficulty.)
My thanks also to you for taking the time to write. (Though a complaint, it’s more helpful to my work than a compliment; it also shows your interest and care.)

Q.  The good LSU professor writes back the very next day:

Your web site is still completely garbled, but one of the links inside your reply below led me to "The Cosmic Microwave Background & the Unification of Physics". Your conclusion that a photon has a rest mass "Hence, the single CMB photon has energy e, mass m, velocity c," (page 10) is contradicted by many experimental facts. We can not slow a photon down to any speed below c in the lab, which we interpret to mean that it does NOT have a rest mass, or rather that its rest mass is identically zero. We CAN do this for electrons or neutrons, so we say they have rest masses. You also seem to be unaware of the many experimental facts that confirm special relativity, its use of a Lorentz transformation invariant mechanics, and the 4-vector nature of energy-momentum to describe both photons and other particles. Many experiments with photons, done by the thousands in physics labs around the world, would have different results if photons had a rest mass. For example, the famous Compton-effect experiment (scattering of high energy photons by electrons) would give a different result if photons had a rest mass. Ignorance of just this one important fact suggests to me that your paper should be read as a religious or philosophical discourse, and not a scientific one, which must be cognizant of the body of experimental knowledge, and be consistent with it. I am not willing to spend time considering any theories which are clearly ignorant of the enormous body of experimental knowledge built up over the last 150 years. Our current theories may have difficulties, but they can not be dismissed until an alternative can match their (many) successes in organizing and explaining what does or does not happen in the lab and in nature. A theory of everything must incorporate ALL the successes of our current theories to be worthy of scientific consideration. Yours sincerely...

A.  Dear Professor,
You have been somewhat hasty in dismissing my work. You may not have read the synopsis in full, let alone the rest of the (complementary) website or the book.
What I have put forward is a COMPLETE theory with no preconceived notions from theories past, which were all partial. My purely classical mechanical model has the photon as the evaporated state of matter and the atom as the condensed form; mass and energy are not only equivalent but the two are also intrinsic to matter (as mass-energy); this makes photons, evaporated or condensed, perfectly elastic particles – with mass and energy inextricably embodied, transferring only momentum in any and all interactions; more on my website. As such, please do have the patience to go thro at least the synopsis in full. NOT A SINGLE verified fact of observation is at variance with my model; in fact, the ever-increasing body of observational knowledge serves only to buttress my work even further, something no other theory can dare say. (And I do keep myself updated across the entire spectrum of physics almost on a daily basis.) I’d be only grateful if you could still refute my work without undue recourse to conventional theories however correct they may be within their restrictive domains. And you can be the richer for it, too, if you can convince – not me – but your own department head, alone, at LSU (details in: www.sittampalam.net). Your well-expressed critique here is much appreciated all the same.
PS: Do we not know today that photons can be slowed; and, on the other hand, that no electron or nucleon can be brought to rest, let alone the photon (that is, there would always be that nonvanishing quiver)? The explanations for all these are found in my model, naturally. Further, if “mass of a photon” sounds blasphemous today, we may take it as the sanctified “inertial mass of a photon.” I have mentioned this in my work.


Q.  RS from Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany, writes:

I've looked at www.amazon.com to read the short write-up of your book. For a first impression, could you please send a short description about what your theory is NOT able to explain and where your theory has problems? Thanks. Sincerely, RS

A.  Thank you for a very pertinent question in these times of glitzy names and terms even in the world of serious science. Here, in contrast, the word "Everything" has not been used loosely at all in the book title. When you arrive at the ultimate physical model for the universe, there should simply be nothing it cannot explain in physics. Not even a single (verified) exception should be tolerated. To the best of my knowledge, and in all sincerity, the theory has no problems. These are pretty strong statements; and they make it all the more challenging to readers to prove the author wrong. Good luck!

If the theory had had a single basic problem, the book here would not have got written in the first place. Moreover, no one - least of all, a non-physicist - in his or her right mind would ever knowingly embark on a quest such as this for the final theory when the great Einstein himself had failed. It was quite by accident, and way down the road from my academic years, that I bumped into the idea. At the time, in the early 1990s as an engineering consultant, I was troubleshooting in the deserts of Marsa el Brega, Libya, for the Sirté Oil Co. (formerly Exxon-Esso). A seeming multi-million dollar field safety problem for Siemens (and for the Colonel!) vanished into the thin desert air when we started with simple fundamentals and a well-fortified armory of references. Inspired by such instances also at later times in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, one thing led to another. They all seemed to say: First, get your basics right; and any physical problem will tend to become only embarrassingly simple to resolve the deeper you go to its root. With hardly any social activity after hours in those resort areas of the Foreign Legion, I was soon doodling with gravity and quantum mechanics, the logjam unraveling itself as I probed on with just my basic tools of classical mechanics. The end result is the book (and this complementary website).

Still, do take a skeptical look at it and let me know of any problems you might get bogged down in. It can only help. Thanks again.


Q.  BH of Mount Wilson Observatory (Georgia State University) writes:

You lost my interest with your first bullet point: ‘How the Earth has stayed in orbit for billions of years without losing orbital energy and spiraling into the Sun as present theory would require!’ Present theory would require that the Earth spiral in hundreds of billions of years from now. This theory has been well tested in the orbit of binary pulsars. If your theory cannot account for that, then it doesn't work. BH.

A.  My grateful thanks to BH for raising a great point here, a scathing remark though it may first seem. But the fact of the matter here is, it is only such fault findings in the printed text that help the most in a better future presentation of the theory.

The comment alerted me to a terrible oversight on my part: I had left out the words, ‘under perturbations’, in this first bullet point on the back cover. That is, the item should strictly refer to the long-time stability of natural satellites under perturbations.

A problem in astrophysics, this stability of the ages is not yet resolved. Orbital perturbations over the eons have had little effect, typically, on the solar system. (Refer, for instance: The stability of the solar system, Encyclopædia Britannica, 1992, 23:722:1b.) My book now explains the simple underlying cause for this. The observed spiraling of pulsar (or neutron-star) binaries, too, has now a simple explanation - without recourse to general relativity (see Section 1.03 of the book).

Thanks again for a good critical feedback, which is indeed appreciated much more than a non-critical one.

This glaring mistake on the part of the author has now been rectified in the revised back-cover text. A fuller answer is now given in ADDENDA and Anti-Gravity of these web pages. Below is a reproduction of some relevant sections from the ADDENDA for the convenience of readers here.

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.

  • How the Earth has stayed in orbit for billions of years without losing orbital energy under perturbations and spiraling into the Sun as present theory would require!

 Page 13. The top paragraph here has got inadvertently 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 is the propitious effect that has kept planet Earth safely at bay from the solar inferno and 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. (Refer, for instance: THE n-BODY PROBLEM, Encyclopedia Britannica 2000)

Consider the Earth under a perturbative outward pull. This action 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 will be 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 redeemingly 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.


Q.  JR from Princeton University writes:

What a scam. YOU send me a free copy and I’ll disprove your theory and you don’t have to give me a million bucks for it. [These are essentially the sentiments expressed by JR; the exact words in the e-mail were inadvertently lost in a transfer. My apologies.]

A.  Though not unexpected, this powerful message came in well before this web site was opened (and was in response to an e-mail announcement about the book to the physics department there). Clearly, it is in reference to the book’s front-cover offer: "UP TO ONE MILLION US DOLLARS! An offer to high-school students and university professors alike just to refute this simple no-nonsense theory of action and reaction. Details on back cover."

In these days of con artists and scams and cranks running amok, I myself would tend to react not much differently. No cover offer to sell the unknown merchandise inside did ever convince me anyway. I expect others to be just as wary. Here, however, one may order the book through a local bookstore and check it out before paying for it. At certain stores, you could also sit and read the whole day (even over coffee!) before making up your mind whether or not to buy the book.

To others, without such facility in town, my ‘words of assurance to allay all fears’ here would sound hollow - even to me. As such, I shall resort instead to action. I shall send a free copy (no charge even for postage) to any reader wishing to read and check out the book fully from cover to cover before parting with his or her hard earned money. However, the copy can be sent only c/o the head of a school, college, university, library, or other educational establishment whose name and address the reader is kindly required to provide. The reader may collect the copy from the head by prearrangement. If the reader is fully convinced that it is not a scam, he may then send me a check for the cover price of $19.95. (My royalty should take care of the postage.) Otherwise - no charge; do not waste your money even to post back the book. (You may, instead, give it to your local science library.) The reader’s critical evaluation – positive or negative - may be sent here or, preferably, to the media for the benefit of other potential buyers.

Note: It may be easier for this particular reader from Princeton University to check out one of the three review copies that I sent Prof. P. J. E. Peebles at the physics department there. The reader could also get the opinion of the good professor, perhaps, the most revered authority on cosmology today.


Q.  DC from Hong Kong University writes:

The book seems interesting. How can I order it?

A.  A copy may be ordered from www.amazon.com. You may go directly to their order page by clicking on:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/0533126738/all/ref=dp_bb_a/102-5230186-5740122. 

If you prefer instead to order through a bookstore in your town or city, please give them as many details of the book as possible:

Title: And now, the long-awaited... "THEORY OF EVERYTHING"

Author: Eugene Sittampalam

ISBN: 0-533-12673-8

Place of publication: Vantage Press, New York.

Year of publication: 1999

Should you still encounter a problem or need further assistance, do feel free to write to me at: eugenesittampalam (at) gmail.com.  


Q.  SB of Merton College, Oxford, writes:

Do you have scientific references available detailing some of the ideas of your theory?

A.  I presume what SB means here is whether I have published any part of my theory in scientific journals (the references for which he makes the request). The simple answer here is: no.

Detailing some of the ideas of a radically new theory of everything may only confuse people without prior exposure to the overall concept. Since most mainstream journals have space limitations, they do not generally entertain a work of this extent. To condense it into just 6 to 10 journal pages, on the other hand, would be an impossibility.

Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology), perhaps the most prestigious in the field, is one journal that has no such space restrictions. Dr. Dennis Nordstrom, Editor, was kind enough to accept my first draft and send in his comments. Dr. Howard Georgi, of Harvard University, too, consented likewise and reviewed the initial manuscript in greater detail. It was indeed their critical comments on the work that spurred me on to turn it into a book. (I was also risking copyright by chasing after other journal editors and making the work too public.)

Nevertheless, when the final manuscript was with the publisher, I did try out an extracted form, entitled: Quantum Gravity - A Simple Classical Mechanical Introduction. Copies were sent to top journals and magazines.

Science and Nature, for instance, gave reasons that it was not appropriate for their readers.

The response from Dr. Helmut A. Abt, Managing Editor, The Astrophysical Journal, on the other hand, sounded very positive if not enthusiastic. I received two letters from him within a matter of days, the second one stating that the manuscript has been rushed to Dr. Bernhard M. Haisch, Scientific Editor, for final review. But there was a conflict of interests with Dr. Haisch - who himself had been turned down by editors earlier when he put forward a theory toward unification. [Refer: (1) Inertia: Does empty space put up the resistance? - R. Matthews, Science, 4 February 1994, pages 612-613; and (2) Faster than a speeding photon - D. H. Freedman, Discover, August 1998, pages 70-79.) A long and personal letter also followed from Dr. Haisch discouraging me on my quest. Though he must have meant well, it did not work.


 

Q.  IN - @juno.com - writes:  

 

... I have a little comment or a question for you. In your paper entitled: "The Cosmic Microwave Background & The Unification of Physics," you stated that " Hydrogen is the main exhaust product of stars and not their prime fuel as posited today." This is hard to prove, isn't it?

 

Jupiter was allegedly going to become a small star like the sun and failed to ignite. And as you know Jupiter is filled with hydrogen, and if the ignition had succeeded, it would be burning hydrogen. Or do you use this example to show that stars cannot burn hydrogen? Just an idea.

 

I am definitely fascinated by your theories and I hope and pray that you are not intimidated or discouraged by the so called traditional physicists. Thank you and keep up the good work.

 

A.  ... The answer to your question is already in my paper and website (apart from the book). A patient second reading would definitely help.

 

However, for a short answer here: Your question alludes to the fusion of hydrogen in stars under gravitational pressure. This is a nonevent in the final theory! Nuclear fusion does rule supreme in the universe but only at the ultimate mass centers, which I have called Cosmic Cores. Nuclear fission predominates the scene everywhere else. Hence, the primary-energy producing reaction in the Sun, for instance, is fission (fusion is only the consequential secondary). The final stage of fission is neutron decay, which produces the final ash – the proton, the electron and the electron antineutrino. (The proton and the electron eventually combine to form the atom of hydrogen.) Did you ever wonder why the solar wind mass particles consist mainly of protons and electrons? It’s still a mystery to physicists! What is indeed hard to prove today is fusion as the primary reaction in the Sun (and stars). The continuing shortfall in the detected solar electron neutrinos is typical of the problem (without ad hoc recourse to neutrino 'flavor changing' and causing more problems in other departments of physics!). More from my website (www.sittampalam.net). Do write again if questions persist after the second reading.

 


Q.  CT - @earthlink.net - writes: 

... I do have a question for you however.  I really need to get my hands on an introductory electromagnetics text that explains in plain language and in concise detail the phenomena of electromagnetics -- something with an emphasis on visual details.  My current text is very, very convoluted and after reading your work, you seem to me to be someone who would agree with good common sense without unneeded mathematical verbiage. Can you recommend to me a good electromagnetics textbook from which I will gain something more than just abstract and arbitrarily assigned equations? I know this may seem like a strange request, but I really would like to understand electromagnetics inside and out and every text I have been through so far leaves me wanting.  You seem to be the perfect person to ask for guidance.

A.  ...Concerning any good textbook, your teachers' guidance should never be underestimated especially when you have exams still ahead. My book and web illustrations could help in visualizing the true mechanics of electromagnetism. However, a word of caution here: It’s good to question the current explanations and not take things for granted. But you’re still young, and in college. Stay in the present mainstream of science. Don’t turn maverick yet. Run with the herd and run well. Get through the exams set by the establishment and get the paper qualifications you need to get a decent job. And when you can afford it - rock that establishment if you still feel the need for it. Give vent to all those pent-up unorthodox questions that have been accumulating in you over the years; find solutions; and even write your own book to change the status quo for the betterment of science and mankind. Remember, your chances of success are best when you know fully, "inside and out," what the status quo is, to start with. Best wishes.

 


More Q’s & A’s will follow; but send in the Q's first for the A's to follow!
Good readin’ and surfin’ and see you in these here parts again soon!
Adios!
Eugene


 

Return to Homepage