The Case for Simplicity

What we call space is, in fact, a limitless (insofar as we can ever determine)  electromagnetic field, extending in all directions from any given point of observation. This energy field has an average temperature measured from our earth-based vantage point  of approximately 2.725° Kelvin, although its temperature range varies. The field is turbulent, not smooth, and its condition  varies as random reinforcements and resonances occur in its expanse. As will be shown, these reinforcements and resonances are the ultimate causes of and the source of coherent disturbances and concentrations in the field that result in the creation and maintenance of what has been  called ponderable matter in the form of cosmic dust, its accretion into stars and galaxies, planets, moons and all other features of what we call our universe.

The process by which this creation occurs is one of random reverberations, reinforcements, and resonances in the field, arising out of its turbulence, and the phase transitions that occur when these energy concentrations arise to an appropriate level to achieve temporary stability.  On a cosmic scale, of course, temporary may mean millions or billions of years.

The present “standard model” of cosmology posits a cosmos made up of multiple, even many multiple EM fields each associated with one or the other of individual particles or objects, each field interacting with others in what turns out to be an impossible to mathematize problem due to the sheer volume of the fields’ variables. The simple universe instead substitutes a singe primal field with all perceptible phenomena within it being seen as coherent disturbances of that field. This reduces the mathematics to that of defects in an elastic solid, a topological problem.

The “objects” of the universe, that is, the existing and newly forming stars, planets, and such, are then shown to be formed of very high energy concentrations, coherent deformations in the universal field, in fact, the reification of Einstein’s metaphorical deformations of his imaginary spacetime, the gradual increase in energy density as one approaches an object being the equivalent of his interpretation of gravity.

Beside confirming Einstein’s hypothetical model of General Relativity, the simple universemodel offers a rational confirmation of the known limit of the speed of light and, in fact, that of all other electromagnetic radiation. The speed of these phenomena, seen as distortions of the primal field, is limited by their medium, just as here on earth, the velocity of sound is a function of its medium, our atmosphere. The universal field can then be seen as the equivalent of a non-particulate ether, the carrying medium for all moving phenomena, and, in fact, the one and only fixed relativistic reference frame of the universe.

The goal of this reinterpretation of the standard model of the cosmos is intended to step back from the conflicting arguments for relativity vs. quantum mechanics, the incompatibility of all the existing models and to offer a rational interpretation of the observed world. It clearly removes the need for a hypothetical big bang model, which has no better explanation than does the first chapter of the book of Genesis, the string theories, the many worlds theories (There could be many, scattered about, but they all obey the same laws.). and the mystical hypotheses that have led modern physics so far off the track thus far. It is offered as a rational substitute for endless speculation and for unprovable theories based on unprovable assumptions. It is based on only what is here now and observable, no “singularities” necessary.To step back one more time, you may have noted my reference to Einstein’s metaphoricalconstruct he called spacetime. With that in mind, I’d like to go back even further, to Francis Bacon’s warning in 1620, when he wrote,

“Scientists should be vigilant. . . and especially should guard against tacitly granting reality to things simply because we have words for them.” (Joseph LeDoux, “The Deep History of Ourselves” p. 340)

“Spacetime,” of course is a wonderful and captivating concept. It has compelled and circumscribed the thinking and imaginations of physicists and cosmologists for over 100 years now, and in spite of Bacon’s warning, has taken on the attributes of something very real as a result. Have you ever reached out and grabbed a handful of space? Have you ever looked at it carefully, turned it around and ever, measured its density, its compressibility, its value on any scale of measurement? Of course not, anymore than you could do any of those things with a small pinch of time. Spacetime is a mathematical construct, a name given to an idea, a concept first proposed by Henri Poincaré and Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein’ professors, but magically it has become a thing, a thing that can be bent, distorted, stretched and compressed. Unfortunately , neither space nor time is a real thing, in and of itself, so their combination is neither either. Granted, by around 1920 Einstein himself stated that some kind of ether, something of substance, must fill this capacious thing we call space, but by then, magically, the unreal had become real. But what was its substance? This is not, of course, the only example. Next time you talk to your favorite physicist, ask him, “What, exactly, is a quantum?” There are  too many  examples to recount them all here, but you get the idea, I’m sure.

So, the constants are the same. E still equals mc2and the limit of the speed of light remains “c.” The “laws” of physics, particularly those of Newton, have not been overthrown. Some things remain the same, but the big idea is changed, made simpler, devoid of contradictions. Multiple mysteries have suddenly become just one, “Where did that energy field come from?” A good first step? I welcome your thoughts and comments.

About Charles Scurlock

Charles is a recently retired architect/planner and generalist problem-solver with a lifelong interest in science, physics, and cosmology, and the workings of the human mind. He has started this blog in the interest of sharing his ideas with others of like-(or not so like) minds.
This entry was posted in 6 General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.